Work Flows of the Online Review System Copernicus Office Editor Copernicus Publications | April 2014

1. Work Flows of the Online Review SystemCopernicus Office Editor Copernicus Publications | April 2014

2. Publication Process Word Submission LaTeX Submission Peer-Review Process Online Editorial Support System Typesetting in LaTeX, English Copy-Editing Proof-Reading with the author Print-on-demand for hard-copies of issues Pagination & Online Publication of Article PDF & Abstract HTML File, immediate OA Email Alert Service & RSS Feeds Bibliographic Data Transfer to archives, databases, libraries worldwide

3. User Roles in the Review System Author • Submits the manuscript • Follows the review process Topical Editor (TE) • Handles the actual review process • Nominates & guides referees • Decides about acceptance | rejection | further revision Referee • Reports recommendation to TE Chief Editor (CE) • Fallback for TE problems • Optional: TE assignment & final decision Editorial Support (ES)

4. MS Registration & Submission MS Registration & Submission • Manuscript registration by Authors • Selection of editorial subject areas • Suggestion of potential Referees Email to Author • Confirmation & receipt of manuscript number • File upload request & deadline

5. MS Registration & Submission File Validation • Review file upload generates ES To-Do • Technical check of submitted files • Plagiarism check File Validation

6. MS Registration & Submission Topical Editor Assignment • File validation starts TE call • Standard: TE call based on Author’s subject areas • Optional: CE call to assign/nominate a TE File Validation TE Assignment TEcall email • Link to agree or decline the MS handling | deadline included • Access to abstract • Agreement followed by “initial decision” + Email to Author • TE assignment by CE if deadline was missed

7. MS Registration & Submission Initial Topical Editor Decision • Agreement for handling generates Email to TE • Request for initial decision (link to online form) • Deadline • Options: Start peer-review | reject File Validation TE Assignment Initial TE Decision Referee Nomination • Min. 2 agreed referees | unlimited nominations • Nomination followed by referee acceptance

8. MS Registration & Submission TE Assignment by Chief Editor • Email to CE to assign TE, if • No TE found by TE call • Agreed TE misses initial decision deadline File Validation TE Assignment Initial TE Decision TE Assignment

9. MS Registration & Submission Referee Acceptance • Email to Referee upon nomination by TE • Link to agree or decline the MS reviewing, deadline included • Access to abstract • Agreement followed by referee reports File Validation TE Assignment Initial TE Decision • Referee declines or misses deadline • Email to TE if pending nominations < journal’s quorum • Additional nomination required Referee Acceptance • Agreed Referees = journal’s quorum • Email to TE and Author for information • Additional nomination possible

10. MS Registration & Submission Referee Reports • Email to Referee upon agreement • Link to manuscript • Request to submit a report • Deadline included File Validation TE Assignment Initial TE Decision • Referee misses deadline • Email to TE if pending report requests < journal’s quorum • Additional nomination required Referee Acceptance Referee Reports • Referee reports = journal’s quorum • Email to TE with request for decision • Additional nomination possible

11. MS Registration & Submission Topical Editor Decision • TE access to decision form • Termination of pending Referee report requests  Email to pending Referees • or waiting for pending reports | further nominations File Validation TE Assignment Initial TE Decision • TE Decision • Access to Referee reports • Acceptance followed by file upload • Request for revision followed by revision file upload • Rejection, no actions required • Decision email to Author and Referees Referee Acceptance Referee Reports TE Decision

12. MS Registration & Submission MS Accepted / Waiting for File Upload • Email to Author upon TE’s acceptance • Link to upload production files (text/figures/suppl.) • Deadline included File Validation TE Assignment Initial TE Decision • Production file upload followed by • Typesetting/English Language Copy-Editing • Proof-Reading  email to Author • [Waiting for Payment] • Published email to Author | Referees | TE • Discussion | interactive journals only Referee Acceptance Referee Reports TE Decision Accepted / Production File Upload

13. Revision Requests by Topical Editor • Request for corrections • Revised file upload by Author incl. production files • Immediate transfer to typesetting File Upload TE Decision Accepted / Production File Upload Initial TE Decision File Upload FurtherRevision • Request for minor revision • Revised file upload by Author • Transfer to TE Decision Referee Acceptance Referee Reports TE Decision Accepted / Production File Upload • Request for major revision • Revised file upload by Author • Transfer to Initial TE Decision • Further review with Referees recommended • Final TE Decision possible Further Revision

14. 5 Referee Comments 8 1 5 7 Editor 4 Author Author 3 Author Comments 9 Short Comments Discussion Paper 1st Stage (Discussion Forum) 2nd Stage (Journal) 5 Final Revised Paper Scientific Community Interactive Journal Work Flow 1. Submission 2. Access-Review 3. Technical Corrections 4. Publication as D-paper 5. Comments 6. Revision 7. Revised Submission 8. Peer-Review Completion 9. Final Revised Publication Referees 2 6 Editor

15. Personalized Manuscript Overview • MS listing based on user roles • Personal To-Dos as shortcut • Access to different action forms at the MS

16. MS Records • Chronological listing of all events • Every event lists the corresponding data/files • Sub-division into iterations • Access to archive of system emails

17. Additional Tools • Nomination of TE by CE • Final CE decision • Blindness for Authors and Referees:optional or mandatory • Express access review without Referees | interactive journals only • Post-Discussion Editor Decision • Post-Discussion Reports

18. Post-Discussion Editor Decision • Standard procedure: • Authors reply to interactive comments • Submit revised version • TE makes further evaluation • Post-Discussion Editor Decision Feature: • Authors reply to interactive comments • Authors do not need to revise the paper • TE makes decision based on Authors’ final response • TE immediately accepts/rejects the paper or asks for revision •  Authors will have a clear idea of how to revise their paper

19. Referee Comments Short Comments Discussion Paper Scientific Community Post-Discussion Editor Decision – Workflow 1. Final Response 2. Post-Discussion Editor Decision Publish as is Technical Corrections Minor Revision Major revision Reject 3. Revision 4. Peer-Review Completion 5. Final Revised Publication Referees 4 5 1 2 Editor Author 3 Author Comments Final Revised Paper

20. Post-Discussion Reports • Enhanced transparency through publication of all • post-discussion reports (Referees and TE) • Authors’ replies • after publication of final revised paper

21. Thank you very much for your attention!