Access review

Manuscripts submitted to HGSS at first undergo a rapid assessment by the topical 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 principal evaluation criteria below. The access review is to ensure that the manuscript is suitable for peer review in HGSSD, with all evidence presented adequately.

Principal criteria to be rated good or poor:

  1. Science Historical Significance: does the manuscript represent a substantial contribution to science history within the scope of History of Geo- and Space Sciences?
  2. Scientific quality: are the scientific and historical approach valid?
  3. Presentation quality: are the results and conclusions presented in a clear, concise, and well-structured way?

A ranking of poor in any of the principal criteria is sufficient for rejection at any stage. Manuscripts rated good in all criteria are normally posted on the History of Geo- and Space Sciences Discussions (HGSSD) website, the discussion forum of HGSS, where they are subject to full peer review and interactive public discussion.

Assessment criteria during the full review

In the full review and interactive discussion, the referees and other interested members of the scientific community are asked to take into account, in addition to the access review criteria above, all of the following aspects:

  1. Does the manuscript address science historical matters within the scope of HGSS?
  2. Does the manuscript present new historic research, new interpretations or new compilations of historic issues or data, or new aspects of the lives of important geoscientists?
  3. Are the historical methods clearly outlined and the historical sources clearly stated?
  4. Do the authors give proper credit to related and previous work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
  5. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the manuscript?
  6. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
  7. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
  8. Is the language fluent and precise?
  9. Should any parts of the manuscript (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?

Peer-review completion (HGSS)

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 topical editor. If rated good in all of the principal criteria and specific aspects listed above, it will normally be accepted for publication in HGSS. Additional advice from the referees in the evaluation and rating of the revised manuscript will be requested by the topical editor if the public discussion in HGSSD is not sufficiently conclusive.