Thank you for agreeing to act as a reviewer for Environmental Data Science, an open-access journal at Cambridge University Press. The EDS Editorial Board and the publisher are hugely appreciative of the input of reviewers, which is critical to our process. We recognise that this work is performed on a voluntary basis out of a desire to serve this emerging field. As a small token of our thanks, we provide all peer reviewers with a discount to Cambridge University Press books (a discount code is contained within the thank you letter when you complete your review). 

Jump to:

• Transparent peer review
• Content of your review
• Competing interests
• Resources

Transparent peer review

As of 25 January 2024, EDS operates a transparent model for peer review in which the review reports are published alongside the accepted article. The reviewer has the option of being named alongside the published review, or opting for anonymity. 

This transparent model only applies to articles that were submitted on or after that date (i.e. first version of the article submitted on 25 January or later). Articles submitted before 25 January 2024 are not accompanied by published review reports or reviewer identities. Note: due to the limitations of our peer review system, review forms on revisions that were undergoing peer review or that were waiting for revision on this date also contain the questions about the transparent peer review process, but it is only those articles that were originally submitted on or after 25 January 2024 that will be accompanied by published reviews and the reviewer identities (if the reviewer opts in to being named rather than being anonymous). 

During peer review, the process is single anonymized: reviewer identity is not made visible to author, author identity is visible to reviewer, reviewer and author identity is visible to the editor handling the paper and the Editor-in-Chief sending the final decision. The reviewer interacts with the editor and comments are sent to the authors in the decision letter. In the review form, the reviewer consents to the publication of the review under a CC-BY license and also confirms whether or not the review should be published with full attribution (i.e. reviewer named alongside the report) or anonymously. 

If the article is accepted, the full content of the review report is published alongside the article, along with the reviewer identity (if the reviewer opts into being named) and the reviewer statement of competing interests. The editor identities are also published alongside the article. 

Content of your review

EDS is a journal dedicated to the interface of data science and the environment. We publish work about the use of data-driven approaches to understand environmental processes - including climate change - and to aid sustainable decision-making. The data and methodological scope is defined broadly to encompass artificial intelligence, machine learning, data mining, computer vision, econometrics and other statistical techniques.

As a reviewer, you may have been consulted because of your expertise in particular data science methods, or because of your knowledge of a particular environmental domain.

Please consider the following when providing your review: 

• The review will be published (if the article was originally submitted 25 January 2024 or later), so please make sure that you are happy that the content of the review is suitable to appear online. 
• Please consider the article type (application paper, methods paper, position paper etc), which should be evident within the rest of the details in the peer review system. Does this look appropriate or should the authors consider submitting as another type of article? 

The review should ideally contain: 

• A summary of the paper, stressing what in it is new and interesting;
• Your judgement of the overall quality of the paper and its suitability for EDS, bearing in mind that the journal is seeking to publish research that uses novel sources of data and data-intensive methods as applied to engineering science and practice
• Your evaluation of whether the paper is technically correct and scientifically sound. Note that each research paper should contain a ‘Data Availability Statement’ that makes a declaration about the availability of the underlying data and materials in the interest of transparency and reproducibility;
• An assessment of whether the paper is written clearly and whether its length is appropriate;
• General suggestions for improving the paper, including suggestions about the overall approach and structure of the paper and for additional work that might be required;
• Detailed suggestions for improving the paper.

Your comments will be provided in full to the author in the decision letter. If the article is accepted, your review comments will be published alongside the article along with your identity if you choose to be named rather than anonymous. 

Competing Interests

All reviewers are asked to declare any competing interests. Competing Interests are situations that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on an author’s presentation of their work. They may include, but are not limited to, financial, professional, contractual or personal relationships or situations. Note that the competing interest statement will also be published with your review.

Resources