|Principal criteria||Excellent (1)||Good (2)||Fair (3)||Poor (4)|
Does the manuscript represent a substantial contribution to modelling science within the scope of Geoscientific Model Development (substantial new concepts, ideas, or methods)?
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)? Do the models, technical advances, and/or experiments described have the potential to perform calculations leading to significant scientific results?
To what extent is the modelling science reproducible? Is the description sufficiently complete and precise to allow reproduction of the science by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?
Are the methods, 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 GMD at first undergo a rapid access review (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 above principal evaluation criteria.
Manuscripts rated 4 (poor) in any of the principal criteria are normally rejected without further review and discussion. Manuscripts rated 1–3 (excellent–fair) in all criteria are normally published on the Geoscientific Model Development Discussions (GMDD) website, the discussion forum of GMD, 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 topical 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 GMD. 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 GMDD is not sufficiently conclusive.