Guidelines for scientific editors (v. 1)
Note: This version 1 is applicable since 28/10/2017. This version 1 was approved by the Board of Directors on 28/10/2017. It was approved by the General Assembly on 15/12/2017. Previous version.
Publishing research articles on climate that are both of high quality and accessible to a broad audience is not only our goal, but an inspiring challenge for everyone in Climanosco’s community.
Editors have a special role in that they select reviewers, guide authors through the peer review and take the final decision whether to publish manuscripts.
Here are a few guidelines to help editors in this endeavor.
First, know the basics
Make sure to comply with the Privacy Policy and Copyrights. In particular, note that all data related to the peer review is permanently archived and available to members, and shall not be shared outside the community of members without the prior written consent by the author(s). Note also that your name as editor will appear on the manuscript and published article.
Read the Terms and Conditions for the Submission and Revision of a Manuscript. In particular, note that:
- the manuscript must be based on published, peer reviewed scientific literature,
- references to primary sources must be provided throughout the manuscript and
- the presentation must be understandable to a broad audience without prior scientific education.
Have a look at the peer review process and the set of criteria before you start. Reviewers will be asked to rate these criteria from poor (1), fair (2), good (3) to excellent (4).
A manuscript must be self-contained and is limited to 2500 words (approximately 5 pages). For introductory articles, we strongly recommend a maximum of 1500 words (approximately 3 pages). Read the introduction to our research articles.
Select reviewers
Two accessibility reviewers are required for all manuscripts.
Two science reviewers are also required for multiple source manuscripts and updated manuscripts.
For single source manuscripts that are written by the author of the original scientific paper, no science reviewers are required. For other single source manuscripts, we suggest that you invite the author of the original paper to act as science reviewer. If this is possible, then no further science reviewer is required. If not, then two science reviewers are required.
Both accessibility and science reviewers can be selected from randomized lists available from the manuscript page. Priority must be given to reviewers who have Subject Area(s) and Geographical Sector(s) matching that of the manuscript.
Be aware of the Conflict of Interest Policy when selecting reviewers. Do not select reviewers who are listed by the authors as in potential conflict of interest.
If you do not find reviewers from within the Climanosco community, consider inviting individuals with matching expertise or interest. Reviewers will have to register as members. You may request a registration fee waiver for your invited reviewers by contacting Climanosco.
Be supportive
Accessibility reviewers may not be used to reviewing scientific articles. In such cases, their ratings may often be positively biased. You may want to support them in expressing qualitatively what they see as weaknesses in the manuscripts, especially concerning accessibility criteria. Their feedback is invaluable for helping authors improve their manuscripts and writing skills.
Authors may not be used to writing articles for a broad public. It is often difficult for them to identify what may be of particular relevance and what may not be readily understandable for a broad public. The former should lead the narrative and the latter should either be left out or adequately explained.
Furthermore, authors may not be used to receive feedback from outside the scientific community and may have difficulties in interpreting it. You may want to support them in reviewing the feedback received from reviewer reports and the open discussion, and in identifying changes to implement.
Of course, in all correspondence with authors and reviewers, please adhere to basic rules of conduct. Use an appropriate, non-aggressive and non-overly critical tone, and refrain from making personal criticism.
Be demanding
First be demanding of yourself! Make sure you read the manuscript and check that it is fulfilling all important criteria, in particular that it reflects published scientific research. Make sure you develop an unbiased opinion about its content. If you feel that you cannot be unbiased, please refer the manuscript to another scientific editor.
Use the reviewer reports and the open discussion to identify key elements that could be reasonably improved and ask the author(s) to revise the manuscript accordingly.
Remember that this is a unique opportunity for the author(s) to improve writing they will be proud of and to further develop their skills. If you see room for improvement, don’t hesitate to point it out.
Do not give general feedback or ask for a general rewrite of a manuscript. Rather, be specific and constructive in your recommendations and help the author(s) create a high-quality manuscript that is scientifically accurate, engaging and accessible to the broadest possible audience.
If you encounter any problem or need any clarification contact the team at:
Permalink:
https://www.climanosco.org/rule/guidelines-for-scientific-editors-v-1/
