Note
This is a draft of the text that will appear on the journal website. To propose and discuss changes, please join the online forum.
Peer review process¶
All manuscripts that are submitted to Planetary Research undergo a rigorous peer review before they are accepted for publication. The peer review process consists of four main stages, (1) submission and quality control, (2) reviewer contact and editor assessment, (3) revision and final decision, and (4) post-acceptance and publication. The editor assigned to the manuscript is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the review process and is the sole person responsible for the decision to publish the manuscript. All participants in the peer review process are expected to respect the journal’s code of conduct.
Submission and quality control¶
When an author submits a manuscript to the journal for review, they can choose from using either a standard single-blind review (where the reviewers are by default anonymous) or a double-blind review (where both the authors and reviewers are anonymous). In both cases, the reviewers may opt to make their identity known by providing their name within the text of their review. The authors will be asked to identify one or more editors who they would prefer to handle their manuscript, and also to provide a list of six potential reviewers. The authors may provide an explanation as to why certain reviewers should be avoided, which may be taken into consideration by the editor when contacting reviewers. All authors are required to have an ORCID ID.
After receipt, the editor who is assigned the submission will first ensure that the manuscript adheres to the journal’s manuscript preparation guidelines. This includes assessing whether the journal provided template was used, and whether the references are formatted in the journal’s style with DOIs. If the manuscript does not respect the formatting guidelines, the editor will ask the authors to upload a revised version. The editor will next assess whether the manuscript is within the scope of the journal and whether it is in principle suitable for publication after peer review. The editor may consult other editors or associate editors at this stage, and non-suitable manuscripts will be declined without review.
Reviewer contact and editor assessment¶
Manuscripts will typically be assessed by two reviewers, though more reviewers (or rarely fewer) may be used at the editor’s discretion. When the reviewers are contacted, they will be made aware that their review will be published online if the manuscript is accepted for publication, and they will also be made aware if the first author identified themself as a student. Reviewers will be requested to provide an assessment of the manuscript within three weeks after accepting the assignment. Once all reviews are received, the editor will make an independent assessment of the manuscript and reviews, and provide a decision to the authors within two weeks. Editor decisions can be accept as is, return to authors for revision, or decline to publish.
During the review process, the editor may make use of associate editors in several ways. The editor may consult an associate editor about potential reviewers, the editor may ask the associate editor to contact reviewers on their behalf, and the editor may ask the associate editor to provide an independent assessment after the reviews are received. Associate editor assessments are non-binding. Similar to reviewers, the associate editor’s assessment will be anonymous, unless they decide to make their identity known by providing their name within the assessment.
Revision and final decision¶
If the editor requests revisions, the authors will be encouraged to return a suitably revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the reviewers comments within two months’ time. If revisions take more than six months, the editor may decide to withdraw the manuscript without prejudice and ask that it be resubmitted as a new manuscript when the revisions are complete. Most manuscripts will go through one or two rounds of review and revision. Three rounds may be required in exceptional circumstances, after which the editor may decide to decline to publish the manuscript.
All editor decisions are final, and there are no appeals in the case where the editor declines to publish a manuscript. If the author believes that the editor decision is in error, they may resubmit the manuscript and request a different editor. In this case, the author is encouraged to contact the editor-in-chief before proceeding with the new submission.
Post-acceptance and publication¶
Following acceptance, the journal will construct PDF and HTML proofs of the article for evaluation by the authors. Once the authors accept the proofs, the manuscript will be published immediately on the journal’s website, and it will be included in the next issue (or special issue) published by the journal. The journal publishes one volume per year, with one issue (or fewer) per month, along with occasional additional special issues. All reviews, associate editor recommendations, and editor assessments will be made available as a review report that is linked to the published article on the website.