Note: This version 2 is applicable since 01/12/2024. This version 2 was approved by the Board of Directors on 22/10/2024. It was approved by the General Assembly on 01/12/2024. Previous version.
Climanosco applies an extended peer review process to all submitted manuscripts before their publication as articles in the journal Climanosco Research Articles. This process is designed to ensure that our research articles simultaneously fulfill:
- 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 with current knowledge in a particular scientific discipline. Usually, 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 to the next level by including accessibility as a criterion in addition to scientific criteria. To make sure that our articles fulfill both high scientific standards and accessibility, we include two categories of reviewers in our peer review (see our peer review criteria for more details):
Science reviewers
Science reviewers are registered climate scientists who evaluate the manuscripts with respect to their scientific content.
Accessibility reviewers
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.
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.
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.
Our extended peer review process in detail
Submission phase (8 weeks)
By authors
- The manuscript is submitted online by the main author. The main author is a member of Climanosco and registered climate scientist.
By technical editor
- A technical editor checks that the manuscript meets the requirements set forth in the corresponding Terms and Conditions.
- The technical editor may request editorial corrections from the authors.
- In cases where the manuscript is deemed unacceptable for technical reasons, Climanosco communicates the reasons to the authors and may suggest improvements towards re-submission.
- After the technical editing is completed, the manuscript becomes accessible to all members on Climanosco’s web site.
- The technical editor then assigns the manuscript to an editor who will be in charge of the manuscript until its publication. The editor is a registered climate scientist and a member of Climanosco who was elected to the editorial board.
By community & editor
- The goal of the preliminary discussion is to to provide the authors with initial feed-back and to verify that the manuscript meets the required basic criteria for publishing on Climanosco’s public web site and in journal Climanosco Research Manuscripts.
- All members are invited to offer initial feed-back by posting comments and replies.
- The editor evaluates the manuscript and may request editorial corrections from the authors.
- The preliminary discussion is open for a period of three weeks.
By authors
- Authors make the required initial adjustments to their manuscript and finalize their submission within two weeks following the end of the preliminary discussion.
- Authors are expected to describe the adjustments they carried out to their manuscript in the comments area before the deadline for finalization of submission. The comments area remains open to them until this deadline.
By technical editor
- A technical editor checks that the adjusted manuscript meets the technical requirements (Terms and Conditions).
- The technical editor may request editorial corrections from the authors.
By editor
- The editor evaluates that the manuscript meets the required basic criteria for the acceptance of the submission and its publication in journal Climanosco Research Manuscripts.
- The editor may request editorial corrections from the authors.
Revision phase (12 weeks)
By editor and reviewers
- The editor nominates a science reviewer whose expertise covers broadly the manuscript and who agree to write a review report within two weeks. Science reviewers are registered climate scientists and members of Climanosco. The science reviewers are nominated among the members of Climanosco and 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.
- The editor nominates an accessibility reviewer who agrees to write a review report within two weeks. Accessibility reviewers are members of Climanosco. Priority is given to members who have a subject area of interest covering the manuscript.
- Reviewers have two weeks to write their review report and submit them online.
- 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.
By community
- The goal of the open discussion is to provide the authors with any additional feed-back on their manuscript before the revision.
- All members are invited to contribute to the open discussion by posting comments, suggestions and questions regarding the manuscript and in the light of the review reports.
- The open discussion is open for a period of three weeks.
By editor
- In case of doubt, the editor may invite additional reviewers to submit review reports.
- 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 as necessary.
- The editor sets the definitive level of the manuscript (introductory, general or focus).
By authors
- The authors revise their manuscript and submit the revisions online.
- The authors submit their author’s reply where they address point-by-point the recommendations of the editor, all comments of the review reports, and the significant points raised in the open discussion.
By technical editor
- A technical editor checks that the revised manuscript meets the technical requirements (Terms and Conditions).
By editor
- The editor publishes a final decision as to accept or reject the manuscript.
- If the manuscript is accepted, the editor may request the authors to make last minor corrections to the revised manuscript before publication.
- 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. Re-submission of the rejected manuscript will not be accepted.
Publication phase (2 weeks)
By authors
- The authors have one week to perform the last minor changes requested by the editor to the revised manuscript.
By editor and technical editor
- The final manuscript is then typeset and proof-read a last time by the editor and technical editor before publication.
- From that moment, the article is freely accessible to everyone and Climanosco members may contribute to furthering the discussion by posting comments.
Please note that the timing indicated above is indicative and will depend on the availability and response times of editors, reviewers, and authors.
Permalink:
https://www.climanosco.org/rule/introducing-our-extended-peer-review-process-v-2/
