Peer review criteria for manuscripts

Note: This version 1 is applicable since 15/09/2017. This version 1 was approved by the Board of Directors on 15/09/2017. 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 is an inspiring challenge for everyone in Climanosco’s community. To walk together towards this goal, we take all manuscripts through our extended peer review with the following set of criteria.

These criteria are used by our reviewers, editors and jury members to evaluate manuscripts. Science reviewers are asked to rate the significance, presentation and science. Accessibility reviewers are asked to rate the significance, presentation and accessibility.


  1. Is the focus of the manuscript within the scope of Climanosco?
  2. Is the manuscript (focus and content) new to Climanosco or could the manuscript be re-submitted in the form of an updated manuscript?
  3. Is the manuscript of significance, both scientifically and for the public at large?


  1. Is the presentation clear, coherent and concise, and the language fluent?
  2. Are the scientific arguments presented in a sound and self-sufficient manner?
  3. Is the presentation (text and other material) free of scientific jargon?
  4. Does the presentation ignite the desire to read further?


  1. Does the manuscript provide appropriate scientific references for all important statements?
  2. Have all scientific references cited in the manuscript been published in recognised scientific peer reviewed journals?
  3. 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?
  4. Are the main assumptions and limitations of the cited studies adequately mentioned and discussed where necessary?
  5. Are the conclusions supported by the cited scientific articles?


  1. Are there any words that are not explained sufficiently to be understood by a broad public?
  2. Are the main aspects of the manuscript introduced with sufficient information to allow a broader and critical understanding by the reader?
  3. Does the manuscript provide enough quantitative information to allow an understanding of the temporal and spatial scales of the phenomena discussed, as well as their magnitude or intensity?
  4. Have the implications for various regions and populations of the world been adequately discussed?