|Principal criteria||Excellent (1)||Good (2)||Fair (3)||Poor (4)|
|Scientific significance: Does the manuscript represent a substantial contribution to modelling science within the scope of Geoscientific Model Development (substantial new concepts, ideas, or methods)?|
|Scientific quality: 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?|
|Scientific reproducibility: 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)?|
|Presentation quality: 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)?|
Access review (quick report), peer review, and interactive public discussion (GMDD)
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:
- Does the paper address relevant scientific modelling questions within the scope of GMD? Does the paper present a model, advances in modelling science, or a modelling protocol that is suitable for addressing relevant scientific questions within the scope of EGU?
- Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
- Does the paper represent a sufficiently substantial advance in modelling science?
- Are the methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
- Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
- Is the description sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)? In the case of model description papers, it should in theory be possible for an independent scientist to construct a model that, while not necessarily numerically identical, will produce scientifically equivalent results. Model development papers should be similarly reproducible. For MIP and benchmarking papers, it should be possible for the protocol to be precisely reproduced for an independent model. Descriptions of numerical advances should be precisely reproducible.
- Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
- Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper? The model name and number should be included in papers that deal with only one model.
- Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
- Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
- Is the language fluent and precise?
- Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?
- Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
- Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
- Is the amount and quality of supplementary material appropriate? For model description papers, authors are strongly encouraged to submit supplementary material containing the model code and a user manual. For development, technical, and benchmarking papers, the submission of code to perform calculations described in the text is strongly encouraged.
Peer-review completion (GMD)
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 excellent or 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.