For Authors

For more than a century, AGU Publications has been supporting researchers to advance the Earth and space sciences.
  1. AGU Home
  2. Publications
  3. Authors
  4. Policies
AGU Publications and Ethics Policies
AGU Publications Policies
AGU strives to maintain the highest ethical standards for our publications and to be transparent with our policies and procedures. This page outlines the policies related to peer review and publication of AGU Journals and Books. The AGU Publications Policies page is overseen by Ethics Manager Sarah Dedej, and supported by the AGU Director of Publications Operations, VP of Publications, the Publications Committee, and the AGU Ethics and Equity Center. Questions on publications policies can be sent to the respective journal inboxes or to [email protected]. Ethical queries can be sent to [email protected]. For ethics policies and procedures, see the Publication Ethics and Integrity policies below.

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.

AGU requires that the underlying data needed to understand, evaluate, and build upon the reported research be available at the time of peer review and publication. For more information and guidance, visit the Data and Software for Authors page.

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 Tools

According 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 Policy

A 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 Research

The 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:

  1. 1) An Inclusion in Global Research statement that addresses ethical and scientific considerations, as applicable to the study, as a standalone section in the manuscript following the Conclusions section. This can include disclosure of permits, authorizations, permissions and/or any formal agreements with local communities or other authorities, additional acknowledgements of local help received, and/or description of end-users of the research;
  2. The completion of the CRediT Taxonomy, if not already completed; and
  3. A more detailed explanation of the authorship in the cover letter, if needed.

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.

The AGU Conflict of Interest policy covers all individuals in significant decision-making capacities, applies to all volunteer and staff leaders, and all involved in the journal peer review process including authors. The purpose is to ensure that potential conflicts are recognized, and individuals will properly disclose situations that might generate a conflict of interest during one’s work, or situations that may create the appearance of such a conflict.
Editors
Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Such conflicts include handling papers from: present and former students; colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated; and individuals employed by the editor’s institution. Conflicts also include work closely related to or similar to topics the editor is currently working on themselves.
Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by an editor and submitted to the editor’s journal should be delegated to another qualified editor or associate editor of that journal. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor’s own research except with the consent of the author.
Reviewers
Reviewers should declare all potential conflicting or competing interests and not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal, professional, financial, or institutional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript. This could also include intellectual, political, or religious conflicting or competing interests.
Reviewers should inform the journal if they work at, will be joining, or will be applying to work at the same institution as any of the authors; they are or have been mentors, mentees, close collaborators, or joint grant holders with any of the authors; or have a close personal relationship with any of the authors.
Reviewers should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or in a published work. When in doubt, the reviewer should reach out to the journal or return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
Authors
All authors should disclose any potential conflict of interest (COI) that might affect the results reported in a manuscript and the development of the research. All funding should also be reported to avoid the appearance of any conflict. Some AGU Publications require both this declaration and a signed form.
COI statements
For AGU Advances, GeoHealth, and Community Science authors will be required to disclose any potential conflict of interest for any author that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a manuscript or in the development of the research. These will be disclosed via a form in the submission process and COI statements will be included in the published articles. Journal editors and staff will assess the disclosures.
In order to preserve the integrity of AGU publications with respect to publishing original investigations, AGU prohibits the submission of material for publication that has been previously published in any form that constitutes public distribution. Specifically, any document that is accessible to a library user, who does not have special access or privileges, directly or indirectly in paper or electronic form is considered published, except as noted below.
Previously published explicitly does not include oral or poster presentations, meeting abstracts, or student theses/dissertations of any co-authors of the submitted manuscript. AGU does allow posting of preprints and accepted papers in preprint servers that are designed to facilitate community engagement and discovery across the sciences. Any other online publication with a service that provides archiving with citation protocols and public retrieval capabilities constitutes prior publication.
Publication in Eos does not constitute dual publication if an author submits a manuscript on the same research to one of the AGU journals. Eos articles present material in a completely different manner from the archival publication.
Publication of an article in any language prior to submission to an AGU journal constitutes dual publication.
Other exceptions of postings or publications required for legal or other reasons may be considered at the discretion of the editors.
Preprints Policy
AGU encourages authors to post draft manuscripts (prior to peer review or accepted versions) on Earth and Space Science Open Archive or another preprint server.
Papers submitted to Earth and Space Science Open Archive as part of the submission process with an AGU journal will automatically update with a link to the final published article with no action needed by the author.
Self-Archiving Policy
Authors of articles published in AGU’s journals are permitted to self-archive as outlined below. Self-archiving is often referred to as Green Open Access. Please note that all AGU content is made freely available 24 months after publications.
For articles published as Gold (paid) Open Access, reuse and immediate deposit of the final published article (version of record) in any website or repository is allowed.
Submitted and Accepted Versions
AGU allows authors to self-archive the abstract, the submitted (preprint) version, and the accepted (unformatted) peer-reviewed version of their articles in an institutional repository or personal and departmental website without embargo, following the guidance provided below.
When authors self-archive the article, they cite according to the stage of the manuscript:
  1. If the paper has been submitted for publication, but not yet accepted, the author should include the following statement if they place the paper on a website:
    • “Submitted for publication in (journal title).”
  2. If the paper has been accepted for publication and copyright has been transferred to AGU, the author may place the paper on their own website with the following statement appearing on the first screen of the abstract or article:
    • “Accepted for publication in (journal title). Published (year) American Geophysical Union. Further reproduction or electronic distribution is not permitted.”
  3. If the paper has been published, or when it is published, the above statement should be changed to the following:
    • “An edited version of this paper was published by AGU. Published (year) American Geophysical Union.”
It is recommended that the full citation and a link to the open abstract also be provided:
    • “Author(s), Year of publication (in parentheses), Title of article, Name of journal, Volume number, Citation number, Digital Object Identifier (DOI). To view the published open abstract, go to http://dx.doi.org and enter the DOI.”
Providing the full bibliographic reference helps assure that authors receive full credit through correct citation to their articles, while including the URL directs viewers to the published abstract.
  1. If an article is placed in the public domain.
    • If the article is entirely from US government employees, the credit line would be: “An edited version of this paper was published by AGU. Published (year) American Geophysical Union. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.”
    • If the work is a mix of US government employees and non-government authors, they may include this additional footnote/credit line: “An edited version of this paper was published by AGU. Published (year) American Geophysical Union. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.”
Final Published Article (Version of Record)
AGU allows the final published article (version of record) to be placed in an institutional repository or personal website if the AGU copyright statement is clearly visible, and the post is made 6 months after the official publication by AGU. AGU also supports governmental and institutional repositories and access is available to AGU content through CHORUS, usually 12 months after publication.
Researchgate Syndication Pilot
To facilitate the publishing of preprints and accepted papers and make it easier for you to share your research directly, we are engaged in a syndication pilot with ResearchGate.
The full-text, final published articles from all open access and hybrid open access journals will be uploaded automatically to ResearchGate. Open access articles published in the participating journals will be available to all ResearchGate members, while subscription-only articles will be accessible to ResearchGate members with access through their institution, without the need to authenticate or leave the site to log-in.
All AGU journals participate in this program. More information about this effort is available on Wiley's website.
The article, including related supplements, first published online after copy-editing is the AGU version of scholarly record. In order to protect the integrity of the paper, it is essential to have a clear record of any changes to the content of published files.
The guiding principles of the AGU Corrections policy include:
  • The latest correct version of the published article will always be available.
  • Corrections will be in one of two categories:
    • Erratum: An error introduced by the publisher or author that affects the integrity of the version of record, the reputation of the authors, or the reputation of AGU.
    • Retraction: Withdrawal of a published paper due to invalid results or conclusions. All authors of a paper must sign a retraction request, indicating the error and describing how it affects the paper’s conclusions. If authors are not in unanimous agreement in requesting a retraction, the pertinent editor in chief will consult with associate editors, and as necessary, the AGU Publications Committee, to decide whether an erratum or retraction is most appropriate.
  • As an alternative to retraction, the editor may choose to publish an ‘expression of concern’ about aspects of the conduct or integrity of the work that are under investigation.
  • All substantive content-related modifications to the version of record must be described in a footnote identifying the changes made to the published article.
  • Changes appearing in the version of record that are introduced from the accepted article version that are beyond normal copy-editing and would affect scientific understanding may also be indicated.
  • Format corrections, such as replacing a low-resolution image, correcting corrupted figure labeling, and similar minor changes not involving scientific content, can be made at the discretion of AGU, without formal notification.
AGU Publications fully supports authors who have changed their name for reasons including but not limited to marriage or divorce, religious conversion, and alignment with gender identity and will update the published version of record to reflect this change. Authors should contact AGU Publications to request updates to their published record.
AGU staff will treat such requests confidentially whenever possible and work with authors to ensure changes are made quickly and accurately. Authors will not be asked to provide reason, proof, or documentation of their name change and erratum notices will be at the discretion of the author when a name change is requested. To preserve confidentiality, co-author notification will only occur at the author’s request. Please be advised that, unless co-authors are notified, citations of the paper with outdated references may result. AGU will update and republish the paper and redeliver the updated metadata to indexing services.
There are a few important details to note related to the name change policy:
  • Once requested, AGU will work as quickly as possible to make the changes and it may take several weeks for the changes to take effect.
  • Your ORCID is one means of curating your record of authorship. We recommend you register with ORCID and ensure your profile accurately reflects your name and your publication history.
  • The name change will appear on the author list and metadata of the html version, which is the version of record. We may not be able to update PDF files. References in other works including those for AGU publications will not be updated.
  • While AGU will update its own published version of record to reflect name changes and provide an update to standard indexing services, the changes might not cascade to other databases containing an author’s name and work.
AGU expects authors to comply with the ethical guidelines for publication of scientific research, specifically expressed in the AGU Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics policy. Intentional activities of scientific misconduct are subject to the sanctions outlined in the above-referenced policy.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. For the purposes of AGU Publication ethics, this should include anything that can be found within a manuscript, data, figures, text, methods and any other documented aspects of the manuscript may be plagiarized.
Self-Plagiarism
Self-plagiarism, the act of reproducing your own work without significant changes for the current science and submission, is also a violation of our plagiarism standards. It potentially constitutes dual publication or prior publication. Including a few identical sentences from your own previous paper is not likely to be considered plagiarism; any material quoted verbatim should be placed within quotation marks with appropriate citation. Author reuse of figures from prior published work is often acceptable, please refer to the publisher’s reuse guidelines for more information. For example, AGU allows the reuse of a few figures from prior papers published in AGU journals with proper attribution without acquiring formal permission. However, including significant portions of your own work—whether text, datasets or the majority of figures —without acknowledging the source is unacceptable and could also violate copyrights. AGU journals use plagiarism detection software from iThenticate upon submission to identify any such duplication.
Duplicate Submission
AGU will not consider for publication a manuscript that has been submitted to another peer-reviewed journal with the same basic scientific content reaching the same fundamental conclusions. This does not prohibit the submission to AGU of a manuscript that has been rejected by a peer-reviewed journal so long as that original submission and review process has been completed. Specific questions with respect to this policy should be directed to the editor in chief of the relevant journal.
AGU's special collections feature premier Earth and space science research focusing on a particular topic, significant event, or prominent theme. Articles in a special collection are published online as they are ready and will be collated into a virtual issue, allowing quick access to all papers in that collection. Special collections maintain the same scientific rigor and high ethical standards as the rest of the AGU portfolio. In addition:
  • Special collections must fall within the scope of the journal(s).
  • The journal’s Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the content of the entire journal, including special collections; special collection articles are handled with the same editorial oversight as regular papers, undergoing single anonymized peer review (see Peer Review Policy section for general peer review information). 
  • Guest Editors’ credentials will be checked and must be approved prior to acceptance of a special issue proposal.
  • Guest Editors may contribute to the special collection, but their submissions will be overseen by an independent review process. In addition, no more than 25% of the issue’s total content may be authored by the Guest Editors.
To learn more about special collections or to submit a proposal, please see more information on the AGU special collections page.
AGU Publications Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Statement
As an organization that serves a global community of Earth and space scientists, AGU is committed to promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). Following AGU’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, AGU Publications is implementing changes to foster a more equitable and inclusive scientific publishing environment. This includes proactively working to eliminate the influence of bias in peer review, improving diversity and inclusion within our editorial teams (editors, reviewers, authors) and our publishing processes and policies, and ensuring our publications content fairly and inclusively represents people and communities. We also plan to regularly track and publish our AGU Publications DEI progress.
All AGU members, editors, authors, reviewers, and publications officers and staff are expected to aspire and adhere to our Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics Policy, which includes AGU’s Code of Conduct (Section III) and Ethical Guidelines for Publications of Scientific Research (Section VI).
More information:
AGU Publications Scientific Ethics and Integrity
AGU strives to maintain the highest ethical standards for our publications and to be transparent with our policies and procedures. This page outlines the ethical obligations of those participating in our peer reviewed publication process and provides documentation on the procedures for appealing decisions, presenting ethical violations, and handling comments and replies to published papers.

In general, AGU follows the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Per these guidelines, scientific research, and the preparation of the results, must be free of any impropriety or undisclosed conflicts of interest. Intentional plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification are serious examples of scientific misconduct and as such are inappropriate actions that will discredit the union and compromise the integrity of science. If there is a concern with the peer review or publication of research in an AGU journal, authors are encouraged to follow the guidelines to file a formal appeal or complaint.

The AGU Publications Ethics procedures and policies are overseen by Ethics Manager Sarah Dedej, and supported by the AGU Director of Publications Operations, VP of Publications, the Publications Committee, and the AGU Ethics Office. Any inquiries can be directed to [email protected].

For information on general publication policies, see the AGU Publications Policies.
Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to adhere to the ethical obligations outlined below, from AGU’s Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics Policy.
Authors are expected to do the following to contribute the highest quality science to AGU publications:
  1. Present a precise and accurate account of the research performed and a clear, objective discussion of its significance.
  2. Include sufficient detail and references to sources of information in a manuscript to permit the author’s peers to repeat the work.
  3. Include sufficient detail in the Data and Methods section and provide a Data Availability Statement for data and software in the Open Research section, and citations for data and software as well as other consulted sources in the References section that permit the author’s peers to repeat the work. Access restrictions and licensing (terms of use) need to be clearly stated in the availability statement and the acceptance of such restrictions are at the discretion of the editor. Details, templates, and examples are in the Data and Software for Authors guidance.
  4. Identify sources of all information and cite those publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work and that guide the reader quickly to the primary and other earlier work essential for understanding the present investigation. Information obtained privately, as in conversation or correspondence, should not be used or reported without explicit permission from the source.
  5. Carefully document methodology, assumptions, and uncertainty.
  6. Follow the appropriate procedures in force in their countries that govern the ethics of work done with human or animal subjects.
  7. Never plagiarize the work or ideas of others or your own work. Always provide appropriate citation. (Please see below for additional information on avoiding plagiarism of your own work or that of others.)
  8. Avoid unnecessary fragmentation or redundant publication of research reports to artificially increase the number of publications.
  9. Never include personal criticism in a written piece of work.
  10. Report to the editor any changes made to the manuscript after acceptance.
  11. Include as coauthors only those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work and determine order of authorship in a manner appropriate to the contribution. All coauthors share responsibility for the quality and integrity of the submitted and published manuscript.
  12. List all funding sources including persistent identifiers (e.g. Grant ID, Funder ID) or other in-kind support for all authors in the Acknowledgments.
  13. Disclose any potential conflict of interest for any author that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a manuscript or in the development of the research. (For more information about conflict of interest, see below.) For AGU Advances, Community Science, and GeoHealth, authors will be required to state these conflicts and fill out a form. Journal staff and editors will assess the disclosures.
  14. In the role of corresponding author, ensure that all coauthors are fully cognizant of the steps and changes in the manuscript during the peer review process including any and all changes in authorship or author order and decisions made on the manuscript.
Authorship Policy
All authors have read and approved 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. Learn more about AGU Publications authorship policies.

 

Human Studies and Subjects
For manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, including but extending beyond medical research, journals should require a statement from authors to confirm that the appropriate ethical approval has been received, along with details of the approving ethics committee, and that the study conforms to recognized standards, see for example, Declaration of Helsinki, US Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, European Medicines Agency Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, or the Ethical Review Methods for Biomedical Research involving Humans adopted by the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China. (Credit: Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics)
Reviewing manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process and all scientists have an obligation to do their fair share of reviewing as part of their service to the scientific community. Reviewers provide important expertise to help editors make their final decision on the manuscript. Reviewers for AGU Publications are expected to do the following:
  1. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor. In this case, our editors welcome recommendations for alternate reviewers.
  2. Reviewers should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. A criticism of a published paper may be justified; however, in no case is personal criticism considered acceptable. All reviewers should strive to provide constructive and clear criticism. (For help with phrasing and examples to avoid see the Reviewer Tone Table below.)
  3. A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or in a published work. When in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
  4. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.
  5. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. The reviewer should not share or discuss the manuscript with others. (An exception to this policy is an official 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 other case of collaboration should be run by the editor before sharing the manuscript.)
  6. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument in a manuscript was previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  7. A reviewer should be on the alert to the failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
  8. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author. These guidelines regarding unpublished information do not include an author's own preprints.
Reviewer tone table
Please be constructive in your feedback. Review the table below for suggestions on phrasing to avoid and ways to frame constructive comments.
 Reviewer tone table: examples of review language
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.
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.

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.

Inclusive Practices
AGU is committed to reducing bias in peer review, and we ask our reviewers to minimize the influence that their unconscious biases have on their recommendations by:
  • Focusing on the research in the article, not the author’s attributes such as their name, language, institutional affiliation, nationality, and gender
  • Being aware of potential unconscious biases that you may have
  • Carefully considering the reasons for your recommendation
If you received a review invitation and need to recommend an alternate reviewer, please consider suggesting reviewers that span all career stages, gender, geographic location, race, ethnicity, etc.
AGU Editors facilitate the manuscript peer review process and are responsible for the ethical handling of all manuscripts whether accepted, rejected, withdrawn or transferred. AGU editors, including associate editors, guest editors, handling editors, and editors-in-chief are expected to do the following:
  1. The editor of an AGU publication should consider without bias all manuscripts submitted for publication. Each must be judged on intrinsic research merit without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
  2. Editors should not impede the efficient and timely flow of manuscripts through the peer review process.
  3. The editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication or to reject it without interference from any outside influence. The editor confers with associate editors and reviewers to ensure a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation is used in making the decision whether to publish a paper.
  4. An editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
  5. AGU’s editorial staff will maintain strict confidentiality of manuscripts under consideration for publication.
  6. They should not disclose any information about a manuscript to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers. Reviews and a reviewer’s identity can be shared with other editors of AGU journals only if the author consents to having a paper transferred. With the exception of AGU Advances, which publishes all reviews with permission, our policy prohibits editors from releasing reviews or the identity of reviewers to editors of non-AGU journals.
  7. Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Such conflicts include handling papers from: present and former students; colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated; and individuals employed by the editor’s institution.
  8. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by an editor and submitted to the editor’s journal should be delegated to another qualified editor or associate editor of that journal. If an editor chooses to participate in an ongoing scientific debate within his journal, the editor should arrange for another qualified member of the editorial team to assume editorial responsibility.
  9. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor’s own research except with the consent of the author.
  10. If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in an editor’s journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of a correction to the original paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. For the purposes of AGU Publication ethics, this should include anything that can be found within a manuscript, data, figures, text, methods and any other documented aspects of the manuscript may be plagiarized.
AGU journals use plagiarism detection software from iThenticate upon submission to help identify any duplication in submitted manuscripts.
Self-Plagiarism
Self-plagiarism, the act of reproducing your own work without significant changes for the current science and submission, is also a violation of our plagiarism standards. It potentially constitutes dual publication or prior publication. Including a few identical sentences from your own previous paper is not likely to be considered plagiarism; any material quoted verbatim should be placed within quotation marks with appropriate citation. Author reuse of figures from prior published work is often acceptable, please refer to the publisher’s reuse guidelines for more information. For example, AGU allows the reuse of a few figures from prior papers published in AGU journals with proper attribution without acquiring formal permission. However, including significant portions of your own work—whether text, datasets or the majority of figures —without acknowledging the source is unacceptable and could also violate copyrights.
For policies on Copyright and Permissions, Dual Publication Policy, and Duplicate Submissions see AGU Publications Policies.
The editors or authors of AGU books are now required to complete a simple professional conduct self-disclosure form.
This is an opportunity to disclose any past allegations or institutional proceedings resulting in a finding of professional misconduct, or any current formal complaints related to professional conduct, even if the matter is still pending.
This disclosure is required starting in January 2020 following implementation of AGU’s revised Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics Policy. This Policy includes a Code of Conduct that sets expectations for professional conduct related to harassment, bullying, and other scientific misconduct issues.
Concurrent with finalizing the book contract with Wiley, all relevant editors and authors will be invited to complete and return the form to the AGU ethics inbox.
This applies to editors or authors of books across all AGU series. It is not a requirement for authors of chapters within edited volumes.
A self-disclosure does not automatically disqualify someone from publishing with AGU, but each disclosure will receive a review and follow-up discussion if there are areas of concern.
Appeals and Complaints
AGU follows COPE guidelines for transparency in our appeals and complaints policy to maintain the highest ethical standards for our publications. The appeal and complaint procedure detailed below allows authors, reviewers, editors, and others involved in the peer review process to report ethical issues and appeal decisions. This process is intended to provide a formal process for dealing with ethical issues and decision appeals and ensure that the process is clearly defined and consistent across journals. All complaints and investigations are held confidential. We do not share the details of ongoing investigations with those who are not directly involved.
Appealing an Editorial Decision
If you feel that the decision on your manuscript was made unfairly and would like to appeal, you may start by contacting the journal inbox. Please include the manuscript number and a description of your appeal or request for additional information. The steps for an appeal of a final decision are listed below.
  1. Appeal is received in the journal inbox. 
  2. Program Manager reviews complaint and shares with Editor, Associate Editor (if applicable), and Editor-in-Chief for assessment.
  3. Editor, Associate Editor, or Editor-in-Chief provide a response to the complainant, which the Program Manager e-mails on their behalf from the journal inbox.
  4. If the complainant is not satisfied, they may file a formal complaint.
  5. If a formal complaint is filed, the Program Manager shares the information with Ethics Manager.
  6. The formal complaint is evaluated by the Ethics Manager and Operations Director.
  7. The complaint may be escalated to the Vice President, Publications. VP responds or takes to the AGU Publications Committee.
  8. If the complainant is not satisfied with response from VP, it may be escalated to the Publications Committee. The Publications Committee Ombudsman Group will provide a final response signed by the group.
Most issues will be resolved at the level of editor or editor-in-chief. All appeals will be reviewed by the editor-in-chief and handling editor and will receive a response.
Ethical Complaints
AGU Publications requires all authors, reviewers and editorial staff to behave ethically and avoid any improper behavior. If you are aware of scientific misconduct or if you have been subject to improper behavior during the peer review process, you may submit a formal complaint. The following ethical complaints related to the publication and peer review of manuscripts by AGU Publications may be sent to the journal inbox with a copy to [email protected].
  • Plagiarism, fabrication & falsification
  • Complaints against the Editor-in-Chief, Editor, Associate Editor, or Reviewer
  • Harassment
  • Authorship Disputes
  • Inappropriate use of data
  • Conflicts of Interest
All complaints will be evaluated by the ethics manager with input by the journal editors (where appropriate) and director of publications operations. These cases will be escalated according to the steps below.
  1. Complainant sends allegation to journal inbox and ethics inbox.
  2. Ethics Manager evaluates complaint and obtains additional information to determine whether the case can be evaluated.
  3. Editor, Associate Editor, or Editor-in-Chief evaluates, provides a response to the complainant, which the Ethics Manager e-mails on their behalf from the journal inbox.
  4. If the complainant is not satisfied, Ethics Manager asks if they want to file a formal complaint.
  5. If complainant wants to file a formal complaint, Ethics Manager collects the necessary information.
  6. Ethics Manager and Director of Publications Operations review the complaint, with the Editor-in-Chief as appropriate, prepare a response or escalate to the Vice President of Publications or AGU Ethics, depending on the nature of the complaint.
  7. If the complainant is not satisfied with response from AGU Ethics or VP, escalate the complaint to the AGU Publications Committee. The Publications Committee Ombudsman Group will provide a final response signed by the group.
Comment/Reply Policy and Procedure
AGU journals, with the exception of the Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, will consider for publication comments on papers that have previously appeared in the journal. For the sake of relevance, comments should generally be made on papers published fewer than 5 years ago. The editor of the journal determines whether a comment meets the standards for publication and may elect to decline a comment without further consideration or require revisions before further consideration. If the editor decides to go forward with consideration of a comment, a reply by the author of the paper commented upon will also be considered for publication. Both comments and replies will be refereed to ensure that
  1. the comment addresses significant aspects of the original paper without becoming essentially a new paper;
  2. the reply responds directly to the comment without becoming evasive; and
  3. the tone of each is appropriate for a scientific journal.
A comment will first be reviewed by the editor to determine if it meets the above criteria and can be sent out for review. Once the comment is close to acceptance it will be sent to the author of the original paper, who will be given the opportunity to write a reply. The editor will provide a deadline for receipt of the reply in order to ensure prompt publication of the discussion. If a reply is submitted within the reasonable deadline, the editor will have the reply reviewed. If the original author chooses not to submit a reply or is unwilling to respond within the time frame set by the editor, the editor may elect to publish the comment without a reply.
At this point, a final decision will be made whether to publish the comment and the reply. If it is decided to proceed with publication, both the comment and reply will be posted online on the same day. Both authors will receive copies of the final manuscripts before publication.
Comments and replies will be limited to half the length of the original published paper. Note that there are no publication fees associated with comments or their replies.