Note: This version 1a is applicable since 15/09/2017. This version 1a was approved by the Board of Directors on 15/09/2017. It was approved by the General Assembly on 15/12/2017. Previous version.
Climanosco applies an extended peer review process to its research articles designed to ensure that their content simultaneously fulfills:
- High scientific standard
- Accessibility to a broad audience
What’s a peer review process?
It is a process where peers, namely individuals with similar expertise, evaluate content (here 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 point-by-point each of the issues raised and to 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 takes 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 reviewers in our peer review (see our peer review criteria for more details):
Science reviewers are registered climate scientists who evaluate the manuscripts with respect to their scientific content.
Accessibility reviewers evaluate the manuscripts with respect to their accessibility to a broad audience.
Reviewers are members of Climanosco nominated by the editor in charge of the manuscript.
Transparency and accountability
Our peer review process is fully transparent. All steps, including all associated manuscript versions, review reports and comments in the community discussions, 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 core requirement for any scientific journal to guarantee highest standard in publication.
Our extended peer review process is a cornerstone ensuring that our research articles meet the highest scientific standards while also achieving accessibility.
Furthermore, our peer review process offers a unique opportunity for our members to connect and interact together, improve writing skills and develop knowledge on climate.
Our extended peer review process in detail
Submission of manuscript (1-4 week)
- The manuscript is submitted online by the main author. The main author is a member of Climanosco and registered climate scientist.
- Climanosco’s team checks that the manuscript meets the requirements set forth in the corresponding Terms and Conditions (1-2 weeks).
- Climanosco can request editorial corrections from the authors.
- In cases where the manuscript is deemed unacceptable, Climanosco communicates the reasons to the authors and may suggest improvements towards re-submission.
- After the manuscript is deemed acceptable, it becomes accessible to all members on Climanosco’s web site.
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 initial feed-back on their manuscript and to allow them to make some adjustment before finalizing its submission.
- All members can participate in 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.
Assignment of editor and reviewers (1-2 weeks)
- Climanosco’s team nominates an editor in charge for the manuscript. The editor is a registered climate scientist and a member of Climanosco who was elected to the editorial board.
- The editor nominates two science reviewers whose expertise cover the manuscript and who agree to write a review report within 3 weeks. Science reviewers are registered climate scientists and members of Climanosco. The science reviewers are searched randomly within the members of Climanosco meeting these conditions and the list of names proposed by the authors upon submission. The editor can also invite scientists from the broader scientific community. No science reviewers are required for single source manuscripts that are authored (or co-authored) by one of the main authors of the original scientific article. For single source manuscripts where one of the authors of the original scientific article accepts to act as science reviewer, no second science reviewer is required.
- The editor nominates two accessibility reviewers who agree to write a review report within 3 weeks. Accessibility reviewers are members of Climanosco. Accessibility reviewers are searched randomly through Climanosco members and priority is given to members who have a subject area of interest covering the manuscript. All manuscripts are required to be reviewed by two accessibility reviewers without exception.
Open blind review (3 weeks)
- Reviewers have 3 weeks to write their review report and submit them to Climanosco.
- All other members can submit 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).
- Reviewers can opt to remain anonymous.
- The review reports and the names of corresponding, non-anonymous reviewers remain hidden for the period of the open blind review and are disclosed on its closing date.
Open discussion (2 weeks)
- All members can contribute to the open discussion by posting comments, suggestions and questions regarding the manuscript and in the light of the review reports.
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).
Submission of the author’s reply and revised manuscript (2 weeks)
- The authors submit their author’s reply where they address point-by-point all comments of the review reports and 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.
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’s public web site.
- In case of rejection of the manuscript, the editor may suggest changes to the revised manuscript that might help authors in writing a new manuscript for submission. Submission of the rejected manuscript will not be accepted.
Publication 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’s public web site with links to the manuscript’s submitted version, including review reports and open discussion, and revised version.
- From that moment, the research article is freely accessible to everybody. The submitted manuscript, revised manuscript(s), review reports and open discussion remain permanently accessible to the members of Climanosco.
Please note that the timing indicated above is indicative and will depend on the availability and response times of editors, reviewers, and authors.