|Principal criteria||Excellent (1)||Good (2)||Fair (3)||Poor (4)|
Does the manuscript represent a substantial contribution to scientific progress within the scope of Climate of the Past (substantial new concepts, ideas, methods, or data)?
Are the scientific approach and applied methods valid? Are the results discussed in an appropriate and balanced way (consideration of related work, including appropriate references)?
Are the scientific results and conclusions presented in a clear, concise, and well-structured way (number and quality of figures/tables, appropriate use of English language)?
Manuscripts submitted to CP at first undergo a rapid access review by the editor (initial manuscript evaluation), which is not meant to be a full scientific review. It is utilized 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 Climate of the Past Discussions (CPD) website, the discussion forum of CP, 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 all of the following aspects:
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 CP. 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 CPD is not sufficiently conclusive.