Manuscripts: Evaluation criteria for Peer-Review

Note: This draft version 0 is applicable since 01/01/2015 and until 14/09/2017, pending approval by the Board of Directors and the General Assembly. Next version.

Climanosco is dedicated to publishing high quality articles on climate sciences that can be read by a large public without prior scientific knowledge. The purpose of the Peer-Review Process is to ensure that each article published by Climanosco reflects these goals. The Peer-Review Process follows a strict and transparent procedure. The Editor assigned to a Manuscript forms a Review panel which is typically composed of two Scientific and two Non-scientific Referees, normally members of Climanosco. The Referees are required to write a Review report on the Manuscript within 3 weeks. A Review report evaluates the article with respect to the following criteria:

Criteria for Scientific Reviews:

  1. Significance (common):
    • Is the focus of the Manuscript new to Climanosco or could the Manuscript be re-submitted in the form of an Updated Manuscript?
    • Is the focus of the Manuscript within the scope of Climanosco?
    • Is the Manuscript of significance, both scientifically and for the public at large?
  2. Presentation quality (common):
    • Is the presentation clear, concise, logical and coherent?
    • Are the arguments presented in a logical manner?
    • Is the use of English good enough to allow a fluent reading?
  3. Scientific basis:
    • Is the Manuscript providing appropriate scientific references for all important statements?
    • Have all scientific references cited in the Manuscript been published in recognised scientific peer-review journals?
    • Does the Manuscript give a reasonably complete coverage of the science of interest, or does it miss existing scientific knowledge which has the potential of changing or nuancing its conclusions?
    • Are the main assumptions and limitations of the referenced studies adequately mentioned and discussed where necessary?
    • Are the conclusions supported by the cited scientific articles?

Criteria for Non-scientific Reviews:

  1. Significance (common):
    • Is the focus of the Manuscript new to Climanosco or could the article be re-submitted in the form of an Updated Manuscript?
    • Is the focus of the Manuscript within the scope of Climanosco?
    • Is the Manuscript of significance, both scientifically and for the public at large?
  2. Presentation quality (common):
    • Is the presentation clear, simple, and coherent?
    • Are the arguments presented in a logical manner?
    • Is the use of English good enough to allow a fluent reading?
  3. Readability by a large public without prior scientific knowledge:
    • Is the Manuscript free of scientific jargon, graphs or abbreviations?
    • Are there any technical or scientific terms that might not be understood by a broad public that remain to be briefly explained?
    • Are all aspects discussed in the Manuscript introduced with sufficient information to allow a broader and critical understanding by the reader?
    • Does the Manuscript provide sufficient information to allow the reader to situate the topic in its temporal and geographical dimensions?
    • Have the implications for various regions and populations of the world been adequately discussed?

Each Referee rates its three criteria with grades poor (1), fair (2), good (3) and excellent (4). Manuscripts that receive a poor grade in any category and by any Referee will normally be rejected. Authors of Manuscripts that receive a fair grade in any category are requested to make the corresponding revisions and are given four weeks to send the Revised Manuscript. Manuscripts that receive only good and excellent grades are usually considered acceptable (possibly with minor corrections). The Editor communicates with the main author in case minor corrections are required before publication in Climanosco.

Permalink:
https://www.climanosco.org/rule/manuscripts-evaluation-criteria/