Guidelines for editors

Handle at least 6 manuscripts per year and help to achieve short manuscript processing times as well as a fairly even distribution of editorial workload. Please respond to the editor calls and also consider handling submissions outside your personal subject areas. You can view the list of unassigned manuscripts at (also sent regularly to editors). Please remember to indicate your absence time at

1. Agreement to handle manuscripts

All preprints under review for ACP are posted on EGUsphere and receive an egusphere doi. They undergo the review for ACP, applying the journal review criteria.

If you have any questions about ACP's manuscript handling procedures, our Senior and Executive editors are always happy to help. See editorial board or send an email to

  • Please react promptly to editor assignments by the Executive or Senior editors for manuscripts that were not picked up in the regular editor calls.
  • Do not accept requests from authors to handle their manuscript. The Executive or Senior editors will make a decision on how to proceed when it will not be picked up during the regular editor calls.

2. Initial decision

"Initial decision" means the editor's decision whether to proceed with peer review in ACP, including whether the manuscript type is appropriate.

  • Your initial decision is anonymous during the access review. Your name is not revealed to the authors in the automatic notification emails about editor assignment and rejection before/after quick reports. Editor names are disclosed to authors only upon approval of a manuscript for peer review.
  • Quick reports or "access reviews" from referees can be used to help guide your decision whether to proceed to peer review. These slow down the overall handling of manuscripts, so should be used only when necessary (e.g., if the manuscript is at the edge of your expertise.)
  • The fit to the journal scope should be assessed entirely by the handling editor, not by the referees. See Manuscripts outside the scope should be rejected prior to public review and discussion. Articles with a local focus must clearly explain how the results extend and compare with current knowledge. After this stage, it is normally not appropriate to reject a manuscript for being out of scope.
  • Recategorization of Research Articles into Measurement Reports or Technical Notes should be considered. See; as part of your initial decision, you have the option to confirm the initial manuscript type or change it using the dropdown list.
  • Resubmission to an alternative EGU journal (e.g., AMT, GMD) can be recommended by rejecting the manuscript as being out of scope and selecting the alternative journal from the drop-down list. The authors will receive a corresponding link in the email informing about 'rejection, out-of-scope'.
  • Check compliance with the guidelines for authors regarding the title, abstract, and concluding section.
  • Adherence to the EGU data policy must be checked to ensure that the data presented are openly accessible in accordance with Copernicus' data policy and fulfil the requirements as detailed in the manuscript types. In Measurement Reports, data availability statements such as 'upon request from the authors' are not acceptable.
  • If you handle a manuscript submitted to a special issue, please check whether it is in the scope of the SI: if you are unsure, please contact the SI coordinator(s).
  • The short summary should be checked to ensure that it is immediately publishable and provides an accurate, accessible, and non-technical summary of the article.
  • The similarity report should be checked, but do not base your decision on the similarity index alone. In case of a high index, carefully check the actual overlap with the sources listed in the similarity report. Reasonable self-referencing in the introduction and method sections should be regarded as less critical than extensive similarities in the results, discussion and/or conclusions sections. Note that theses and documents are not peer-reviewed publications and, thus, similarity to documents by the same authors should not be considered plagiarized. If you notice high similarity to a preprint posted on another preprint server, let the authors know that double preprinting is not permitted. Contact the editorial support team to initiate linking of the external preprint to EGUsphere.

3. Review process

  • Remind the referees of the manuscript type specific guidelines in the personal message during referee nomination. This refers to all but regular Research Articles (refer referees to
  • Ensure that at least two referees post their comments in the interactive public discussion of every preprint. If necessary, please complement automated emails by personal emails.
  • You may ask the authors for suitable referee suggestions if necessary. In case of significant delays in the review process or other rare and unusual cases, you may substitute a referee report by an editor comment or make a decision based on a single report if appropriate.
  • Consider further review rounds to evaluate revised manuscripts only if necessary. Usually, the recommendation of minor revisions does not require contacting the same referee again.
  • Ensure that authors post their response to all relevant referee and public comments in the interactive discussion before considering a revised manuscript for publication in ACP.
  • Outstanding referee nominations recognizing particularly helpful and constructive contributions during a review process can be made by sending an email to the Executive/Senior Editors with the name of the referee, manuscript number, and brief justification. Nominations will be considered for the annual ACP outstanding reviewer award.
  • Mail archive: Please cc and add the manuscript number in the subject line in all personal emails to referees, authors, and the editorial support team. This way, the full correspondence regarding a paper is accessible for Copernicus and the executive/senior editors. These emails will be deleted some time after the final status of the paper.

4. Final decision

  • Enforce high quality standards for final revised papers in ACP by iteration of review and revision or rejection of deficient manuscripts. See the criteria at Posting and public review of a preprint does not guarantee acceptance for ACP: As is the case with other preprint repositories, submitted preprints will remain permanently accessible on the EGU Preprint Repository, EGUsphere. Upon rejection by an ACP editor, any relation to ACP (both in EGUsphere and in ACP) is removed, therefore rejection does not prevent resubmission to an alternative journal.
  • Substantial and scientifically useful but non-public exchange between authors and referees or other commentators can be published as an editor comment (provided that all involved parties agree to the publication). See for example:,,
  • Nominate a paper as a Highlight Article, if appropriate, by selecting this option during the final decision phase. Please write a short justification of why the article meets the criteria (see Highlight articles are accompanied by an executive editor statement, which will be based on your written justification.
  • If you decide to accept a critically reviewed manuscript, please post an Editor Comment in the discussion. In such cases, you should also write a personal email to the critical referees, briefly explaining your decision and thanking them for their effort. Otherwise, referees might get the impression that their input is not valued. When the majority of referees were very critical and after extensive discussions, the editor should normally conclude with a public editor comment.

Further information on interactive open access publishing

Further general guidelines and background information are given on the journal web pages,,, and on EGUsphere