GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY

Global Ecology and Biogeography should be regarded as the number one in the field of biogeography, surpassing the well-established Journal of Biogeography and the fully open-access journal Diversity and Distributions. GEB receives very few submissions, typically only 12-14 articles per issue and no more than 150 articles annually. The rejection rate is over 80%, usually favoring the best among the best. Here are my deepest impressions of this journal:

1. Emphasis on large-scale research: Especially focused on global-scale studies, which leads to a relatively high number of integrative analysis or data synthesis articles published in the journal. There are also articles based on regional-scale survey data, but it is difficult to submit survey-based articles unless they have novel research focuses, relatively large scales (in a relatively complete geographical region), and close connections to basic ecological scientific assumptions.

2. The chief editor and editors are responsible and rigorous in the review process: This includes ensuring the accuracy of statistical analyses, the rigor, standardization, and aesthetics of figures and tables, and the logic, conciseness, and accuracy of paper writing. The review comments received (through three rounds of external review) are almost always focused on these three aspects and are strictly guarded.

Just published online. Personal feelings:
1. Very picky about the quality of the article. The reviewers provided many specific comments, and the quality has indeed improved a lot. I feel that I can conquer GEB and can try to challenge GCB in the next step.
2. Slow progress. Submitted in January last year, rejected in the first review but could be resubmitted, directly minor revisions in the second review (surprising), followed by a third review, which took half a year. The third review only pointed out formatting issues (added some author introductions as required by the journal). The fourth review claimed that there was duplication with my previously published papers (the duplication rate was less than 1%, and they were all in the materials and methods section). It was not until the fifth review that it was accepted. The whole process took more than a year, and it seems that the reviewer was changed in the middle.