© The Authors Global Change Biology Bioenergy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Articles are published under the terms of the Creative Commons License as stated in the final article.
Edited By: Steve Long
Impact Factor: 4.882
ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2014: 1/81 (Agronomy); 11/89 (Energy & Fuels)
Online ISSN: 1757-1707
Associated Title(s): Global Change Biology
Editorial Office contact details
University of Illinois
1118 Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology
1206 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801-3838
Tel. +217-300-9011 or +1-217-333-9651
Online manuscript submission
Submit your manuscript electronically to GCB Bioenergy through ScholarOne Manuscripts.
Overview of the Editorial Process
All submitted manuscripts will be processed through plagiarism detection software. In submitting your manuscript you accept that it may be screened against previously published literature. Plagiarized manuscripts will be rejected immediately.
GCB Bioenergy is committed to rapid evaluation and publication of submitted papers. To this end, we strive to return the Editor's decision and reviewer comments within 45 days of submission and to publish papers online within 30 days of receipt of the final version of the manuscript and all necessary files and forms.
In order to achieve this, manuscript review is now based on a two-stage process.
- During the first stage, manuscripts are assigned to appropriate members of the Editorial Board who determine if the manuscript should be sent for peer-review. This decision is based on the submission questions and abstract. In 2014, the average time for this stage was 5 days and 61% of manuscript progressed to the second stage.
- During second stage, manuscripts are assessed by two or three independent reviewers. The final decision is made by the Subject Editor. In 2014, the average time for stage two was 29 days and 28% of submitted manuscripts were accepted for publication.
- A decision letter will be emailed to the corresponding author once the Subject Editor has made his or her decision.
- If at any time during the review process the corresponding author has a question regarding the status of a manuscript or the nature of the peer review process, he or she should contact the Editorial Office.
The typesetter will notify the corresponding author via e-mail to electronically retrieve page proofs approximately 4 weeks after the final version of the manuscript and all necessary files and forms are received by the Editorial Office. After the proofs are corrected, the article will appear on EarlyView until it is assigned to an issue.
Types of papers
GCB Bioenergy will consider the following manuscript types:
Original Research Articles present the results of a completed research project and are up to 8000 words in length. Word limits apply to the main body of the text (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Acknowledgements). Formatting is standard (see Formatting Instructions, below). These are peer reviewed. Decisions are made by the Editors.
Technical Advances present exciting new research tools, methods, and techniques, including new modeling approaches, and should include a detailed description of the methodological design and discussion of how this technique improves the study of global change biology. GCB has a wide readership; accordingly the technical advance broadly applicable. Papers describing methods that apply to one species or system are unlikely to meet our criteria unless authors are able to show that their methods can be generalized. The main body word limit is 4000 words (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results & Discussion, and Acknowledgements). Formatting is standard (see Formatting Instructions, below) except that Results and Discussion may be combined. These are peer reviewed. Decisions are made by the Editors.
Comment and Review
Research Reviews examine a defined specialist subject that is of topical interest. Reviews should begin with an abstract and an introduction, followed by up to 10 headings following a logically developed plan, and end with a Conclusion, tables, figure captions and figures. Reviews should be no more than 8000 words (count includes Introduction, body, Conclusions and Acknowledgements). These are peer reviewed. Decisions are made by the Editors.
Opinions are usually a review or re-analysis that challenges prevailing views on a topical issue. These may include emerging frameworks arising from a synthesis of recent research, alternative interpretations of a field of research, controversial perspectives on current areas of research of high interest, or reason the need for a new direction in research. This list is not exclusive and the Editors are interested to hear of other ideas. While this category of article is designed to allow expression of viewpoints that may run counter to established viewpoints, articles must be anchored in sound reasoning developed from the peer-reviewed literature. The article must be sufficiently complete to convince reviewers of the value of the contribution. Articles that are essentially reviewing a topic, a statement of opinion not reasoned from the peer-reviewed literature, arguing for redirection of government funding for research and those primarily discussing the authors’ own work will not be considered. Opinions articles should begin with an Abstract and Introduction, followed by a body with up to 6 headings, and end with a Conclusion, tables, figure captions and figures. Opinion articles should be no more than 4000 words and have no more than 8 tables and figures. These are peer reviewed. Decisions are made by the Editors. Authors interested in submitting an Opinion should first send a one-paragraph proposal (300 words) to the Editorial Office.
Reports are expert scientific reports which outline the direction of a relevant research area, integrated experimental network, etc. Reports should begin with an abstract and introduction, followed by up to 20 headings, and end with a Conclusion and/or Recommendations, table, figure captions and figures. Reports should be no more than 8000 words (count includes Introduction, body, Conclusions and Acknowledgements). These are peer reviewed at the Editor’s discretion. Decisions are made by the Editors.
Authors interested in submitting a Report should first send a one-paragraph proposal (300 words) to the Editorial Office.
Platforms are structured authoritative reviews of a specific feedstock , e.g. switchgrass, Jatropha, or algae. These will describe the organism being used or potentially used by the biofuels industry, its origin, culture, issues, sources of genomic information, genetic resources, transformation systems, environmental risk assessment and environmental benefits, and in the case of crops, where they may be grown and what yields may be expected. There is an urgent demand for information on a range of organisms that have been little used in the past, but appear to have large potential. Platforms should begin with an introduction, followed by up to 10 headings following a logically developed plan, and end with a Conclusion, tables, figure captions and figures. Platforms should be no more than 8000 words (count includes Introduction, body, Conclusions and Acknowledgements). These are peer reviewed. Decisions are made by the Editors.
Legislative Issues and Policy Developments are authoritative reviews that deal with existing, proposed legislation or voluntary compliance with agreed codes of conduction (e.g. Green Certificates) affecting the development of biological R&D and deployment of biofuel systems. For example: How does the Biodiversity Convention affect use of novel organisms and genes in making better biofuels? How will proposed EU or US Farm Bills affect the development of new crops? What are the implications of widespread deployment of different biofuels systems for the IPCC? Policy commentaries should begin with an introduction, followed by up to 10 headings and end with a Conclusion, tables, figure captions and figures. They should be no more than 8000 words long.
Editorial and Front Material
Editorials are a commentary from an Editor or Guest Editor on an important development in the Journal or background to a SI or VSI. They have the following sections: body, references, tables, figure captions and figures. They should include no more than 2 tables and figures, 10 references, and be no more than 500 words. These are not peer reviewed. Decisions are made by the Editors. Editorials may be submitted by invitation only.
Editorial Commentaries are a discussion of recent exciting research or in-depth analysis of topic issues including meetings. Opinions are welcome as long as they are factually based. Commentaries only have the following sections: body, references, tables, figure captions and figures. They should include no more than 2 tables and figures and 10 references, and be no more than 1000 words (count includes body and Acknowledgements). These are not peer reviewed. Decisions are made by the Editors.
Letters to the Editor are a short discussion of articles recently published articles or topical issues presenting an alternative or well-reasoned challenge to an article of relevance to the journal. Opinions are welcome as long as they are factually based. Letters only have the following sections: body, reference, tables, figure captions and figures. They should include no more than 2 tables and figures and 10 references, and be no more than 800 words (count includes body and Acknowledgements). If a letter is accepted for publication it will be provided to the authors of the original article (when appropriate) so that they may have an opportunity to provide a Response to the Editor. These are not peer reviewed. Decisions are made by the Editors.
Response to the Editor is a response to a Letter to the Editor. Opinions are welcome as long as they are factually based. Responses only have the following sections: body, reference, tables, figure captions and figures. They should include no more than 2 tables and figures and 10 references, and be no more than 500 words (count includes body and Acknowledgements). These are not peer reviewed. Decisions are made by the Editors.
Pre-submission English-language editing
Authors for whom English is a second language may choose to have their manuscript professionally edited before submission to improve its grammar, spelling, punctuation, and clarity. Visit Wiley-Blackwell's site to learn about the options. All services are paid for and arranged by the author, and use of one of these services does not guarantee acceptance or preference for publication.
Conflict of Interest
Wiley-Blackwell requires that all authors disclose any potential sources of conflict of interest. Any interest or relationship, financial or otherwise, that might be perceived as influencing an author’s objectivity is considered a potential source of conflict of interest. These must be disclosed when directly relevant or indirectly related to the work that the authors describe in their manuscript. Potential sources of conflict of interest include but are not limited to patent or stock ownership, membership of a company board of directors, membership of an advisory board or committee for a company, and consultancy for or receipt of speaker’s fees from a company. The existence of a conflict of interest does not preclude publication in this journal. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to review this policy with all authors and to collectively list in the manuscript (under the Acknowledgments section), and in the online submission system ALL pertinent commercial and other relationships. Corresponding authors will be asked to confirm whether or not a conflict of interest exists as part of the submission process.
Instructions for Authors
1. Compile the electronic version of your manuscript according to the instructions below.
2. Gather the following information which will be necessary to complete your submission:
Contact information for all authors
• First name, middle initial and last name
• Postal address
• E-mail address
Name and e-mail address of 5-7 suggested reviewers. While these selections may be taken into account, the final selection is subject to the Editor's discretion. These suggestions must be without a conflict of interest with the authors including former or current coauthors (within the past 4 years), students, mentors and members of the same academic institution. Authors may also indicate up to three non-preferred referees.
Answers to the following questions (max 50 words per answer). Please take time to prepare your answers to these questions; this information may be used to determine if the manuscript should progress to stage two of the review process.
• What is the scientific question you are addressing?
• What is/are the key finding(s) that answers this question?
• Why is this work important and timely?
• How does your paper fall within the scope of GCBB; what biological AND bioenergy aspects does it address? Policy papers do not need to contain biological aspects. What are the three most recently published papers that are relevant to this manuscript?
• Provide information about suggested and non-preferred reviewers including their area of research and how it relates to your paper. Also provide justification for why you do not prefer certain reviewers.
• If your manuscript does not conform to author or formatting guidelines (e.g. exceeding word limit), please provide a justification
3. Use the submission checklist as a guide to ensure that files are correctly prepared for submission.
4. Submit your manuscript and cover letter electronically through the GCB Bioenergy ScholarOne Manuscripts site. Enter the Author Center and click 'Click here to submit a new manuscript'. The instructions at the top of the screens will guide you through the submission process.
Manuscripts may be submitted for review in the following file formats: Microsoft Word or Corel WordPerfect, Rich Text Format or Post Script (NOT a pdf).
All pages should be numbered consecutively, starting with 1 for the title page and including those containing acknowledgements, references, tables and figure captions. Manuscripts must be page size letter (8.5 x 11 inch) or A4 (210 x 297 mm) with margins of at least 2.5 cm. Lines must be numbered and double-spaced and text must be in Times New Roman font, 12 point. English spelling should conform to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Both American and British English are acceptable, but must be consistent. Tables and figures should be embedded within the main text and in the appropriate manuscript section.
Primary Research Articles should be arranged as follows. Manuscripts in other categories should be modified appropriately.
1. Title page
i. Title: this should be concise and informative
ii. Running title: no more than 45 characters, including spaces
iii. List of authors
iv. Institute or laboratory of origin: Where authors have different addresses, use numbered superscripts to refer to each address provided
v. Corresponding author: include their telephone, fax and email details
vi. Keywords: 6 – 10 key words or short phrases to enable retrieval and indexing by searching techniques. Authors are encouraged to include scientific names, common names, and pseudonyms that are not mentioned in the title.
vii. Type of Paper
This should provide a concise statement of the motivation for the work done, the scope of the work and the principal findings. The abstract should be less than 300 words. Commentaries and Letters do not contain abstracts.
This should argue the case for your study, outlining only essential background, but should not include either the findings or the conclusions. It should not be a review of the subject area, but should finish with a clear statement of the question being addressed.
4. Materials and methods
This should allow replication of all experiments described and demonstrate the validity of those experiments for the research being conducted.
This should not include material appropriate to the Discussion section. Platforms, Reviews, Commentaries and Letters do not have Results sections.
Each table should be on numbered, accompanied by an explanatory caption and referred to in the text. Data must not be presented in both tabular and graphical form.
Figure panels should be labeled with lower case, bold letters in parentheses (e.g. (a), (b)) and referred to in the text in the form Fig. 1a, Fig. 1a,b. Include captions below each figure. Enough detail should be given so that the figure can be understood without reference to the text. Please consult the submission checklist for more information regarding figure formatting (GCB_Submission_Checklist_Sep_2015.pdf) or Wiley Blackwell's Illustration Guidelines (http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/illustration.asp for more information.
This should highlight the significance of the results and place them in the context of other work. It should not introduce new material, be over-speculative, reiterate the results, or exceed 20% of the total length. The Results and Discussion sections may be combined for Technical Advances papers. A Conclusion replaces the Results and Discussion section for Reviews and Platforms.
Only Reviews and Platforms may have conclusions sections. All other article types should incorporate any conclusions into the Discussion section, and should not include a "Conclusions" subheading.
The number of references is limited for Commentaries and Letters (max 10). The reference list should be in alphabetical order and include the full title with the name of the journal given in full. When there are eight or more authors only the first three should be listed, following the et al.
Thackeray SJ, Sparks TH, Frederiksen M et al. (2010) Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments. Global Change Biology, 16, 3304–3313.
George DG, Hewitt DP (1998) The influence of year-to-year changes in position of the Atlantic Gulf Stream on the biomass of zooplankton in Windermere North Basin, UK. In: Management of Lakes and Reservoirs During Global Climate Change (eds George DG, Jones JG, Puncochar P, Reynolds CS, Sutcliffe DW), pp. 223–244, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE), PP. 81–82. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rotter RP (1993) Simulation of the biophysical limitations to maize production under rainfed conditions in Kenya: evaluation and application of the model WOFOST. PhD Thesis. University of Trier, Germany.
When there are more than two authors, use the first author followed by "et al". Use commas between the author and date of publication, and to separate different publications by the same author. Semicolons separate citations of different authors. Cite two or more publications by different authors in chronological sequence, from the earliest to latest. For example:
(Cramer et al., 2012)
(Shanley & Chalmers, 2012; Marchard, 2013)
(Lindroth et al., 2012, 2013)
(Duran et al., 2012; Robertson et al., 2013)
We recommend to visit the following hyperlink http://endnote.com/ for reference management and formatting.
10. Supporting Information captions
Short caption for each supporting information file.
11. Data Accessibility Required for DNA sequence, microsatellite, SNP, microarray, and Next Generation Sequencing data. For example: - DNA sequences: Genbank accessions F234391-F234402; NCBI SRA: SRX0110215- Final DNA sequence assembly uploaded as online Supporting Information- Climate data and MaxEnt input files: Dryad doi:10.5521/dryad.12311- Sampling locations, morphological data and microsatellite genotypes: Dryad doi:10.5521/dryad.12311
12. Supporting information
Appendices may be submitted as Supporting Information to be published online with an article. These files are not included in the typeset manuscript, but are downloadable and fully searchable from the HTML version of the article. This material should be submitted with the original manuscript in order that it can be included in the review process. The conclusions of an Author's manuscripts should not depend on the material supplied in Supporting Information. Supporting information will be made available in exactly the same form as originally provided; it will not be copyedited or typeset.
All supporting information must be referred to in the manuscript with a leading capital S (e.g., fig. S2 for the second supporting information figure). Authors should include a Supporting Information section after the references in the main article. This section consists of short captions for each supporting information file. Full captions should be included within the online supporting information file. Please see Wiley-Blackwell's Supporting Information Guidelines for more information.
Online production tracking is now available for your article through Wiley-Blackwell's Author Services at http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/. Author services enables authors to track their article - once it has been accepted - through the production process to publication online and in print. Authors can check the status of their articles online and choose to receive automated e-mails at key stages of production. The author will receive an e-mail with a unique link that enables them to register and have their title automatically added to the system.