For Authors
For Authors
With the exception of AGU Advances (see below), AGU journals follow a single anonymized peer review model where the names of the authors are visible to the editors and reviewers, but the names of the reviewers are kept confidential. At their discretion reviewers may disclose their name to the authors during the peer review process. AGU will never release the names of reviewers to authors or outside parties without their explicit permission.
AGU Advances follows a single anonymized and transparent peer review model. Author names and affiliations are not revealed to reviewers until they have accepted the request to review, and the reviewer names are never revealed to the authors. When AGU Advances publishes a paper, we will also make available online the history of the review process, including reviewer comments (anonymous or self-identified) but not reviewer names. Thus, reviewers and authors need to know that their comments may be published on the web, though only in the case of papers that are ultimately accepted for publication.
Reviewing and AI Tools
Large Language Models (LLMs) and other generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools cannot be used to review a manuscript on behalf of the invited reviewer. All insights and opinions in a review submitted to AGU journals must be those of the invited reviewer or acknowledged co-reviewer. Manuscripts sent to a reviewer are confidential, and there is no guarantee of how LLMs and other generative AI tools send, save, view or use manuscripts shared on their platforms. Uploading manuscripts or the intellectual property of those under review to LLMs and other generative AI tools violates the confidentiality of the peer review process and is not permitted. Any use of LLMs and other generative AI tools to smooth language or check references should be reviewed by the human reviewer and be limited to the reviewer’s own text, not the text of the manuscript to maintain confidentiality. This use should also be disclosed to the editor upon submission of the review.
Co-Reviewer Program
All AGU journals also participate in co-review. In an official co-review one or two junior scientists, research assistants, postdocs or similar assist in all stages of the review as a learning experience and are given credit via the reviewer form in the submission system.
All coauthors share responsibility for a submitted paper and are expected to follow the AGU Ethical Obligations for Authors. Each author must read and approve the paper and will be informed about all reviews and revisions. It is expected that authors will have: (1) made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, or creation of new software used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it; (2) approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study); and (3) agreed to be personally accountable for their own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. AGU will notify each co-author about a submission and all revisions. A deceased person who met the criteria described here may be designated as an author.
The corresponding author accepts the responsibility of including as authors all persons who meet these criteria for authorship and none who do not. Other contributors who do not meet the authorship criteria should be appropriately acknowledged in the paper. The corresponding author also attests that all living co-authors have seen the final version of the paper, agree with the major conclusions, and have agreed to its submission for publication.
AGU encourages all authors to indicate their respective contributions using the CRediT taxonomy. This is used to describe the specific contributions of each coauthor to the paper, to learn more please visit https://credit.niso.org/. A CRediT Taxonomy is required for the following journals: AGU Advances, Earth and Space Science, and JGR- Solid Earth.
Authorship and AI ToolsAccording to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and endorsed by AGU Publications, Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, are not permitted as authors as they cannot take responsibility for submitted works, however their use should be fully transparent. As non-legal entities AI tools cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements. Authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent by disclosing details of use, including which AI tool was used and how it was used, in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus responsible for any breach of publication ethics.
For more general guidance and best practices on AI technology use in scholarly publishing, please visit Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics.
Group Authorship PolicyA group or team of authors should only be listed as a coauthor if they meet the criteria above. The group must have contributed significantly to research and preparation of the paper. Otherwise, the group should be appropriately acknowledged in the Acknowledgements Section.
If the group meets the co-author criteria, add a list of each person in the group and institutional affiliations as an appendix at the end of the manuscript. A copy of an email sent to all individuals in the group notifying them of co-authorship status must also be submitted.
Authorship: Inclusion in Global ResearchThe Inclusion in Global Research policy aims to promote greater equity and transparency in research collaborations. AGU Publications encourage research collaborations between regions, countries, and communities and expect authors to include their local collaborators as co-authors when they meet the AGU Publications authorship criteria. Those who do not meet the criteria should be included in the Acknowledgement section. Please see this Editorial for more information.
We encourage researchers to consider recommendations from The TRUST CODE - A Global Code of Conduct for Equitable Research Partnerships when conducting and reporting their research, as applicable, and encourage authors to include a disclosure statement pertaining to the ethical and scientific considerations of their research collaborations in an “Inclusion in Global Research” statement as a standalone section in the manuscript following the Conclusions section.
As part of this policy, Editors at their discretion may return a manuscript to the corresponding author for additional information, as listed below. This information may be requested when the research is conducted in low-resourced locations or communities outside of the authors’ own country or community and which rely on local researchers, collaborators, resources, field data, or samples collected there.
The additional information requested includes:
This additional information will be made available to editors and reviewers during the peer review process and the statement will be published with the paper.
Example Inclusion in Global Research Statements:Example statements can be found in the following published papers. Please note that these statements are titled as “Global Research Collaboration Statements” from a previous pilot requirement in JGR Biogeosciences. The pilot has ended and statements should now be titled “Inclusion in Global Research”, per the policy description above.
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. |
Large Language Models (LLMs) and other generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools cannot be used to review a manuscript on behalf of the invited reviewer. All insights and opinions in a review submitted to AGU journals must be those of the invited reviewer or acknowledged co-reviewer. Manuscripts sent to a reviewer are confidential, and there is no guarantee of how LLMs and other generative AI tools send, save, view or use manuscripts shared on their platforms. Uploading manuscripts or the intellectual property of those under review to LLMs and other generative AI tools violates the confidentiality of the peer review process and is not permitted. Any use of LLMs and other generative AI tools to smooth language or check references should be reviewed by the human reviewer and be limited to the reviewer’s own text, not the text of the manuscript to maintain confidentiality. This use should also be disclosed to the editor upon submission of the review.
For more general guidance and best practices on AI technology use in scholarly publishing, please visit Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics.