The Peer-Review Process (v. 1)

Note: This version 1 is applicable since 25/04/2017 and until 14/09/2017, pending approval by the General Assembly. This version 1 was approved by the Board of Directors on 25/04/2017. Previous version. Next version.

Climanosco is the first journal with a Peer-Review Process enforcing that publications fulfill simultaneously:

1. A high scientific standard; and
2. An accessible language for a large public.

What’s a Peer-Review Process?

It is a process where peers, namely individuals with similar expertise, evaluate a piece of text (a manuscript) to make sure that it is written in accordance to current knowledge in a particular discipline. Usually, two (or more) independent peers are required to write a review report raising all issues that are found in the manuscript. The Authors are then required to address in a point-by-point manner each of the issues raised and revise their manuscript accordingly. Based on the revised version, the editor takes a final decision as to the possible publication of the article.

How different is Climanosco’s Peer-Review Process?

Climanosco is taking the classical Peer-Review Process to the next level. To make sure that our articles fulfill both high standards and accessibility, we include two categories of peers in our peer-review:

1. The scientific peers who evaluate the manuscripts with respect to their scientific content; and
2. The non-scientific peers who evaluate the manuscripts with respect to their accessibility to a large public.

Transparency and accountability:

Our Peer-Review Process is fully transparent. All steps, including all associated manuscript versions, review reports and comments in the open discussion, are permanently archived and are available to all members at all times.

Why is the peer-review important?

A healthy, independent Peer-Review Process is a key requirement for all scientific journals to guarantee highest standards in published articles. In the same way, our unique Peer-Review Process is key to enforcing high standards on the scientific content but also on the accessibility of articles.

Furthermore, our Peer-Review Process offers a unique platform for our non-scientists and our scientist to interact together and enter into an organic learning process whereby everyone learns from each other and can improve their skills.

Our Peer-Review Process in details:

1. Submission of Manuscript
   • The Manuscript is submitted online by the main Author. The main Author must be registered as a scientific member.
   • Climanosco evaluates whether the Manuscript meets the minimal requirements (1-2 weeks).
   • The office can request editorial corrections from the Authors.
   • If the Manuscript is deemed unacceptable, the office communicates the reasons to the Authors, possibly with suggestions for improvement before re-submission, or can recommend the Authors to turn it into a Manuscript Invitation. Further revision is not allowed at this stage.
   • If the Manuscript is deemed acceptable, it becomes accessible to members on Climanosco’s web site (usually within 1-4 weeks from submission)
2. Preliminary Discussion (2-4 weeks)
   • The Preliminary Discussion is optional for Authors who have already published a Manuscript with Climanosco; it is mandatory otherwise.
   • The goal is to provide the Authors with an initial feed-back on their Manuscript and to allow them to make some adjustment before finalizing their submission.
   • All members can contribute to the Preliminary Discussion by posting comments and replies.
   • The Preliminary Discussion is open for a period of two weeks.
   • Authors are free to make adjustments to their Manuscript during the Preliminary Discussion and for another two weeks until the deadline for the finalization of submission. Authors are responsible for finalizing their submission before this deadline.
   • Authors are expected to describe the adjustments they carried out to their Manuscript in its comments area before the deadline for finalization of submission. The comments area remains open to Authors until this deadline.
3. Assignment of Editor and Referees
   • A scientific Editor is assigned by the office to the Manuscript.
   • The Editor finds two Scientific Referees whose expertise cover the Manuscript and who agree to write a Review report within 3 weeks. The Scientific Referees are chosen from the list of names proposed by the Authors upon submission, if necessary expanded with names of other scientific members of Climanosco who have the appropriate expertise, or of other scientists from the scientific community. No Scientific Referees are needed for Paraphrased Manuscripts that are authored (or co-authored) by one of the main Authors of the original scientific article. For other Paraphrased Manuscripts where one of the Authors of the original scientific article accepts to act as Scientific Referee, then no further Scientific Referee is sought.
   • The Editor finds two Non-scientific Referees who agree to write a Review report within 3 weeks. The Non-scientific Referees are randomly chosen from Climanosco’s member list. All Manuscripts are assigned two Non-scientific Referees without exception.
4. Open Blind Review (3 weeks)
   • The Referees have 3 weeks to write their Review report and submit them to Climanosco.
   • All members can read the Manuscript and post a Spontaneous Review report.
   • Each member can submit only one Review Report for a Manuscript.
   • The Review reports must be written in English (for Manuscripts in English).
   • The Review reports and the names of the corresponding Referees and contributors are hidden until the closing date of the Open Blind Review period.
5. Open Discussion (2 weeks)
   • All members can contribute to the Open Discussion by posting comments, suggestions and questions concerning the Manuscript and in the light of the Review reports.
6. Editor’s Recommendation (1-2 weeks)
   • Based on the Review reports and the Open Discussion, the Editor publishes a recommendation for the Authors, with a short description of the revisions to be made to the Manuscript if necessary.
   • The Editor sets the definitive level of the Manuscript (Introductory, General or Focus Manuscript).
7. Submission of the Author’s Reply and Revised Manuscript (2 weeks)
   • The Authors submit their Author’s Reply where they reply point-by-point to all comments of the Review reports and to the most significant points raised in the Open Discussion. In their Author’s Reply, they also explain how they will address the recommendations of the Editor.
   • The Authors revise their Manuscript directly online.
   • The Revised Manuscript is posted on Climanosco after the deadline for revisions.
8. Editor’s Final Decision (1-2 weeks)
   • The Editor publishes a formal decision as to accept or reject the Manuscript.
   • If the Manuscript is accepted, the Editor can request the Authors to make last minor corrections to the Revised Manuscript before publication on Climanosco.
   • In case of rejection of the Manuscript, the Editor may suggest changes to the Revised Manuscript that might lead to an acceptable new Manuscript, or to turn the Manuscript into a Manuscript Invitation.
9. Publication of the final version of the Article (1-2 weeks)
   • In case of acceptance, the Authors have one week to perform the last minor changes requested by the Editor to the Revised Manuscript.
   • The Final Manuscript is then typeset and proofread a last time by both Authors and Editor.
   • It is finally posted on Climanosco under Published Articles with a direct link to the Manuscript, its revised version(s), the Review reports and the Open Discussion.
   • From that moment, the Published Article is freely accessible to everybody. The submitted Manuscript, Revised Manuscript(s), Review reports and the Open Discussion remain permanently accessible to the members of Climanosco.

The timing indicated above is approximate and will depend on the availability and response times of Editors, Referees, and Authors.

Permalink:
https://www.climanosco.org/rule/peer-review-process-v1/