Introduction

The Evidence in Earth Science follows a single-blind peer-review process, meaning that reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Your feedback is crucial in maintaining the scientific rigor and quality of the journal, and your role as a reviewer is fundamental to upholding academic integrity.

Purpose of the Review

The main purpose of the review is to assess whether the manuscript:

• Makes an original contribution to the Earth sciences.
• Demonstrates sound scientific methodology and data analysis.
• Is clearly structured, well-written, and logically presented.
• Complies with ethical guidelines, including proper citation and the absence of plagiarism.
• Provides valuable insights or advances within its field (e.g., geophysics, geology, hydrology, environmental sustainability).

Reviewer Responsibilities

As a reviewer for Evidence in Earth Science, you are responsible for:

• Providing an unbiased review: Focus on the scientific merits of the manuscript, regardless of your personal opinions.
• Being constructive: Offer helpful suggestions for improvement, such as additional analyses, clarifications, or even new research directions.
• Confidentiality: Do not share the manuscript or discuss its contents with anyone, and do not use the information for personal gain.
• Timeliness: Please complete the review in a timely manner, as requested by the editorial team.
• Conflict of interest: If you have any personal, professional, or financial conflicts related to the manuscript, disclose them immediately.

Review Process

The review process includes the following steps:

• Initial Evaluation: The editor will first assess whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope. If appropriate, it will be assigned to reviewers with the relevant expertise.
• Reviewer Assignment: You will be invited to review based on your expertise. If you accept the review request, you may be provided with specific questions to help guide your evaluation.
• Review Criteria: When reviewing the manuscript, consider the following:
  • Novelty and Originality
  • Scientific Rigor
  • Clarity and Structure
  • Ethical Standards

Types of Feedback

You are asked to provide two types of feedback:

• General Comments to the Authors: These are comments that will be shared with the authors and may include suggestions for improving clarity, structure, methodology, or interpretation.
• Confidential Comments to the Editor: These are private comments meant for the editor’s eyes only. You may use this section to:
  • Recommend acceptance or rejection.
  • Raise concerns about ethical issues, scientific integrity, or conflicts of interest.
  • Mention anything that may affect the review process.

Recommendations for Decision

After completing your review, provide a recommendation on the manuscript's suitability for publication:

• Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript is mostly acceptable, but minor changes are required.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions, but could potentially be accepted after these revisions are made.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the scientific or quality standards of the journal.

Review Timelines

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within 2–3 weeks. If more time is required, please inform the editor promptly. If you are unable to review, kindly decline the invitation so that we can assign the manuscript to another reviewer.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers must adhere to the following ethical guidelines:

• Confidentiality: All manuscripts are confidential and should not be shared or discussed with others.
• Competing Interests: If you have a conflict of interest with any of the authors, please disclose this to the editor.

Reviewer Recognition

Evidence in Earth Science acknowledges the contributions of its reviewers. Reviewers are recognized annually and may receive benefits such as discounts on article processing charges (APCs) for their own submissions. Additionally, reviewers can be invited to join the journal’s editorial board.