Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to decide how well the respective datasets presented by an article and the article itself meet the following criteria (rated 1-4, excellent-poor):
Originality
Are the data or methods new, i.e., never measured or employed before or are they an improvement, e.g., in resolution or precision, of a known dataset or method? In case of a sufficiently significant or (potentially) controversial dataset, an article about the data outcome of a replication of an experiment or observation may be accepted. Does the author make a clear and verifiable claim to this?
 |
"Known about" but unpublished datasets need not to be considered. |
Significance
Is there any potential of the data being useful? This is obviously the most problematic decision to take. There are at least three sub-criteria to evaluate:
- Uniqueness: It should not be possible to replicate the experiment or observation on a routine basis. Thus, any dataset on a variable supposed or suspected to reflect changes in the Earth System deserves to be considered unique. This is also the case for cost-intensive data sets which will not be replicated due to financial reasons. A new or improved method should not be trivial or obvious.
- Usefulness: It should be plausible that the data, alone or in combination with other datasets, can be used in future interpretations, for the comparison to model output or to verify other experiments or observations. Other possible uses mentioned by the authors will be considered.
- Completeness: A dataset or collection must not be split artificially, e.g., to increase the possible number of publications. It should contain all data that can be reviewed without undue multiplication of workload and can be re-used in one context by a reader.
Presentation Quality
It is not expected to receive long articles. Regarding the style, it is aimed that a stereotypical wording will develop, so that unambiguous meaning can be expressed and received without much effort. The article should express clearly what has been found, where, when and how. The article text and references should contain all information necessary to evaluate all claims about the dataset or collection, whether the claims are explicitly written down in the article, or implicit, through the data being published or their metadata. The authors should point at suitable software or services for simple visualisation and analysis, keeping in mind that neither the reviewer nor the casual "reader" will install or pay for it.
Data Quality
The data must be presented readily and accessible to inspection and analysis to make the reviewer's task possible. Even if a dataset submitted is the first ever published (on a parameter, in a region, etc.), its claimed accuracy, the instrumentation employed and methods of processing should reflect the "state of the art" or "best practises". Considering all conditions and influences presented in the article, these claims and factors must be mutually consistent. The reviewer will then apply his expert knowledge and operational experience in the specific field to perform tests, e.g., statistical tests, and make a judgement whether the claimed findings and its factors - individually and as a whole - are plausible and without detectable faults.
Access Review, Peer-Review & Interactive Public Discussion (ESSDD)
Manuscripts submitted to ESSD at first undergo a rapid access review by the editor (initial manuscript evaluation), which is not meant to be a full scientific review but to identify and sort out manuscripts with obvious major deficiencies in view of the above principal evaluation criteria.
If they are not immediately rejected, they will be published on the Earth System Science Data Discussions (ESSDD) website, the discussion forum of ESSD, where they are subject to full peer-review and Interactive Public Discussion.
In the full review and interactive discussion the referees and other interested members of the scientific community are asked to take into account the general criteria above and additionally the following aspects:
- Does the paper address relevant scientific findings within the scope of ESSD?
- Are substantial findings reached?
- Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
- Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?
- Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
- Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
- Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
- Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
- Is the language fluent and precise?
- Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?
- Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
- Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
- Is the amount and quality of supplementary material appropriate?
Peer-Review Completion (ESSD)
At the end of the Interactive Public Discussion, the authors may make their final response and submit a revised manuscript. Based on the Referee Comments, other relevant comments, and the authors' response in the public discussion, the revised manuscript is re-evaluated and rated by the editor. If rated 1-2 (excellent-good) in all of the principal criteria and specific aspects listed above, it will normally be accepted for publication in ESSD. Additional advice from the referees in the evaluation and rating of the revised manuscript will be requested by the editor if the public discussion in ESSDD is not sufficiently conclusive.
