REVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS

AGU Publications relies on our reviewers to help ensure the standards, quality, and significance of our papers, and timeliness of our review process. Peer-reviewed manuscripts are the cornerstone of advancing science and are increasingly important in numerous uses in society. Thank you for your support and help in advancing our science and serving society.

All reviewers are expected to uphold AGU's ethical guidelines and to disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors. Reviewers are expected to keep manuscripts confidential, and to only annotate PDFs by downloading them and adding anonymized feedback using the “Comments” feature in Adobe, then uploading this file as an attachment to the review.

Overall Guidelines:

In general, the most helpful review is one which first provides an overall summary of the main contribution of the paper and its appropriateness for the journal and summarizes what major items should be addressed in revision. These can be explained and amplified in further comments or paragraphs. Minor suggestions or edits are best listed separately. Any issues that the editors should be aware of can be indicated separately in "remarks to the editors" and will remain confidential. If you prefer, you can upload a file with your review and/or an annotated manuscript. For further information, see this Eos feature article. In addition to a written review, you will be asked several specific questions regarding the manuscript and its presentation (answers in drop-down selections). 

Please be constructive in your feedback. Review the table below for suggestions on phrasing to avoid and ways to frame constructive comments.

Examples of Review Language

Not Constructive	More Constructive	Category	Explanation
“This paper is unreadable. You didn’t proofread at all.”	“This paper would benefit from a close reading, there are many errors that take away from the clarity of the argument.”	Vague statement	This statement is not constructive. A better statement would elaborate on what needs to change without making judgements about the authors’ effort.
“You need to. . .”	“The authors should. . .”	Command	Reviews are best written in third person (e.g., “they” statements instead of “you”), as the tone in this example can be construed as accusatory.
“The writing is too emotional.”	“The authors are encouraged to use more concise and focused language to underscore the importance of their conclusions.”	Gendered	This statement is derogatory and focuses on gender stereotypes instead of the science. It also does not offer any constructive guidance on how to adjust the language the reviewer finds problematic.
“The paper needs to be edited by a native English speaker.”	This paper contains numerous grammatical and spelling errors throughout. The authors should consider having the paper reviewed by an editing service. [It is useful to highlight a few examples to illustrate your point, but you should not copyedit the entire paper.]	Culturally insensitive	The stage at which a language is learned does not indicate technical proficiency. Providing a few examples of the types of errors found in the paper will allow the authors to understand and address the errors. Please note that you are not expected to point out every error; providing a few (3-5) examples should be sufficient.
“The authors have no understanding of the literature (or X topic).”	“I recommend reading the following papers, which could better inform the authors’ findings: [list citations].”	Makes assumptions	The statement calls the authors’ qualifications into question instead of elaborating on where the science or writing is lacking.
“This paper contributes nothing to the field.”	“Although this paper's findings are relevant to the field, these findings have already been explored in previous work. The authors are encouraged to review [list citations] to determine a novel approach to their topic.”	Inflammatory	This statement makes assumptions about the paper instead of offering guidance to the authors on how they can broaden their research so it may contribute something to the field.
“You’re wrong [or any other negative adjective like stupid, useless, etc.]” “This was a waste of my time” "You’re making ridiculous claims.”	These types of comments should be withheld, as they are not constructive.	Inflammatory	These comments do not provide feedback authors can use to revise their work. Review comments should give the authors actionable feedback. Review comments should avoid inflammatory and personal attacks.
Bringing personal issues into a review: e.g., “These authors have a history of doing X, this study is useless just like their previous study on Y.”	Personal attacks should always be withheld. Reviews must be objective and unbiased. If a reviewer cannot ensure this, then they should recuse themselves from the review. If any conflicts of interest are present that could impact a review, reviewers must disclose this to the Editor prior to accepting a review invitation.	Personal attack	Reviews should be unbiased, respectful, and constructive. Personal attacks that call an author’s character into question should never be included in a peer review.

If you are reviewing a commentary, please see the guidelines for writing and reviewing a commentary for an AGU journal. If you are reviewing any other manuscript types, please answer these as best as you can.

Please recognize that final decisions on acceptance or rejection and the extent of revisions are made by the editors. Reviewers play a critical advisory role in that process. AGU will inform you of the final decision.

Please return your review on time. If you are unable to meet the agreed-upon deadline, contact the journal staff immediately so that the editors can determine the appropriate course of action. Extensions are granted at the discretion of the editors. Please submit your review online using the link provided.

Please help ensure that manuscripts comply with AGU’s Data and software availability guidelines.

AGU requires that all data needed to understand, evaluate, and build upon the reported research must be available at the time of peer review and publication. Additionally, authors should make available software that has a significant impact on the research. Data, software, and other research objects (e.g. notebooks) should be made available in repositories that support preservation and reuse. An explicit Availability Statement in the Open Research section of the paper is required describing where readers can find and access the data (and software). Authors should include intext citations to data (and software) in the Open Research section and the full citation in the References section. Guidance on what the Availability Statement and Citation should include along with templates and examples can be found at Data & Software for Authors. 

A directory of repositories is here.

Highlights: The journal’s editors recommend a number of papers with particularly interesting findings or methods, timeliness, or broader relevance for extra promotion. If you feel that the paper is particularly noteworthy, please indicate this in the appropriate section of the review form. In particular, AGU is now considering commentaries (ca. 1500 words and 1-2 figures) written by scientists to accompany key papers. These are intended to place the results and related issues into a broader context for the AGU audience and to point out future directions in the field. They will be published in the journal and highlighted to the community. If you feel the manuscript you are reviewing is such a piece, please indicate this in the review form. All such commentaries are invited by the editors.

GEMS INSTRUCTIONS

When you log into GEMS, you will be taken to your home page. The manuscript you have agreed to review will be under “Reviewer Tasks” and will be marked with a red arrow.

Click on this link to access additional instructions, the details of the manuscript and files, and the Review form (click on “Review manuscript” link).

Please update your contact information and areas of expertise by selecting Modify Profile/Password, under General Tasks, at the bottom of your home page.

AGU recognizes reviewers:

AGU will provide credit for your review to your ORCID profile with your permission. ORCID is unique identifier for researchers where you can list publications, reviews, and more. First, register for an ORCID and associate it with your GEMS profile, both of which can be done by updating your profile (link at bottom of your home page once you log into GEMS). After completing your review, you will receive an email asking for permission for AGU to update your ORCID record. We only indicate to ORCID the journal and year that you completed each review, not any other information on the paper.

AGU also recognizes reviewers throughout the year at meetings with awards and service subscriptions.