Interactive public discussion, peer review, and publication in ACP
The process of interactive discussion, peer review, and publication in the scientific journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) differs from traditional scientific journals to enhance quality by transparency. It involves a discussion stage, where the manuscript is posted as preprint on EGU's preprint repository EGUsphere followed by public commenting by the referees, authors, and other members of the scientific community. All participants are encouraged to stimulate further deliberation rather than simply defend their position. Authors are invited to take an active role in the exchange by posting comments as a response to referee and community comments as soon as possible in order to stimulate further discussion. The handling editor bases their final decision on the authors' response to all comments and their corresponding revision.
In all cases, also if no additional comments from the scientific community are received, a full peer-review process in the traditional sense, albeit in a more transparent way, is assured before publication of a paper in ACP. The entire review process is guided by ACP editors and the ACP review criteria are applied.
The process includes the following steps:
Submission of original manuscript and editor assignment
Original manuscripts are submitted and assigned to editors covering the relevant subject areas.
The handling editor is asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is within the scope of the journal and whether it meets a basic scientific quality. If necessary, they may ask independent referees of their choice for support. They can suggest technical corrections (typing errors, clarification of figures, etc.) before posting the manuscript as a preprint. Further requests for revision of the scientific contents are not permitted at this stage of the review process but shall be expressed in the interactive discussion. The editor is anonymous to the authors during this stage; their name will be revealed after acceptance of the manuscript as preprint.
Open discussion (6 weeks) on EGUsphere
After acceptance of the manuscript for public peer review and discussion, it appears as a preprint and is citable with a digital object identifier (DOI). The discussion phase represents a unique opportunity to engage in an iterative and developmental reflective process. During this phase interactive comments can be posted by nominated referees (anonymous or named) and by interested members of the scientific community (named). All participants are encouraged to stimulate further deliberation rather than simply to defend their position. This enhancement-led process is offered to maximize the impact of the article. Normally, every preprint receives at least two referee comments. Authors are invited to take an active role in the debate by posting author comments as a response to referee comments and comments of the scientific community as soon as possible in order to stimulate further discussion by interested scientists. After the open discussion, no additional community comments and referee comments are accepted. Only contact authors and the handling editor have the opportunity to post author and editor comments, respectively, beyond the open discussion.
After the open discussion, the authors are expected to post a response to all comments within 6 weeks, in case they have not done so during the open discussion. The editor can also post additional comments or recommendations. Normally, however, formal editorial recommendations and decisions shall be made only after the authors have had an opportunity to respond to all comments, or if they request editorial advice before responding.
Submission of revised manuscript
Submission of a revised manuscript is expected only if the authors have satisfactorily addressed all comments, and if the revised manuscript meets the high quality standards of ACP (review criteria). In case of doubt, the authors shall consult the editor on whether they recommend preparation and submission of a revised manuscript or not. Normally, the revised manuscript should be submitted no later than 4 to 8 weeks after the end of the open discussion. If more time is required for manuscript revision, the authors can request an extension. Along with the revised manuscript, the authors are requested to submit a 'final author reply to the editor' where each reviewer comment is answered and all related modifications of the manuscript are listed. This letter to the editor should be structured in a clear and easy-to-follow sequence for each of the points in the referee/community comments: (1) comments from referees/community, (2) author's response, and (3) author's changes in manuscript.
In view of the access peer review and interactive public discussion, the editor either directly accepts/rejects the revised manuscript for publication in ACP or consults referees in the same way as during the completion of a traditional peer-review process. If necessary, additional revisions may be requested during peer-review completion until a final decision about acceptance/rejection for ACP is reached.
Publication of final revised paper in ACP
In the case of acceptance, the final revised paper is typeset and proofread. Then it is published on the ACP website with a direct link to the preceding preprint and interactive discussion. In addition, all referee and editor reports, the authors' response, as well as the different manuscript versions of the peer-review completion will be published (only valid for manuscripts submitted from 01 October 2013). All publications (preprint, interactive comments, final revised paper) are permanently archived, citable, and remain accessible to the open public.
The timing indicated above is a guideline which may have to be modified according to the availability and response times of editors, referees, and authors.
The submission of comments and replies which continue the discussion of scientific papers beyond the limits of immediate interactive discussion is encouraged. Such peer-reviewed comments undergo the same process of peer review and publication as described above: after appearance and discussion, they may also be published in ACP if sufficiently substantial.
If a manuscript that has been posted as a preprint is not accepted for publication as a final paper in ACP, the authors have several options to proceed as outlined under frequently asked questions, point 6. For further information on the definition and standing of discussion papers, please read the EGU Position Statement.
Types of interactive comments
In the interactive public discussion, the following types of interactive comments can be submitted for immediate non-peer-reviewed publication alongside the preprint (manuscript in discussion):
- Community comments (CCs) can be posted by any registered member of the scientific community (free online registration). Such comments are attributed, i.e. posted under the name of the commenter.
- Referee comments (RCs) can only be posted by the referees involved in the peer review of the manuscript in discussion. They can be anonymous or attributed (according to the referee's preference).
- Editor comments (ECs) can only be posted by the editor of the manuscript in discussion.
- Author comments (ACs) can only be posted by the contact authors of the manuscript in discussion on behalf of all co-authors. Co-authors can post CCs but not ACs. After the open discussion, during the final response, the author comments should be structured in a clear and easy-to-follow sequence: (1) comments from referees/community, (2) author's response, and (3) author's changes in manuscript.
The authors and editor of a manuscript in open discussion are automatically informed via email about comments in the interactive public discussion. Alert services are also available to other members of the scientific community. The interactive discussion is supervised but not actively moderated by the editors, who have the option of censoring comments that are not of substantial nature or of direct relevance to the issues raised in the manuscript in discussion or which contain personal insults. Authors are advised to follow the discussion of their preprint and to notify the Copernicus Publications Editorial Support and the handling editor in case of abusive comments. The ACP editorial board reserves the right to exclude abusive commenters.
All comments receive a DOI and are fully citable and archived. Comments can be composed by using the WYSIWYG editor for HTML content. More complex content can be uploaded as a *.pdf file and will be displayed as a supplement to the comment. Figures can directly be included in the comment.
Chart of the Interactive Public Peer ReviewTM
- 1. Submission
- 2. Access review
- 3. Technical corrections
- 4. MS posted on EGUsphere
- 5. Comments
- 6. Revision
- 7. Revised submission
- 8. Peer-review completion
- 9. Final revised publication