Review criteria
The papers submitted to Wind Energy Science Discussions will undergo a short review by an editor to ensure that the paper is worthy of a review. The editor will evaluate scientific significance and quality, presentation quality and relevance for the journal.
In Wind Energy Science all types of manuscripts will be evaluated by the reviewers by the following three criteria:
| Principal criteria | Excellent (1) | Good (2) | Fair (3) | Poor (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific significance: Does the manuscript represent a substantial contribution to scientific progress within the scope of of WES (substantial new concepts, ideas, methods, analyses, or data)? | ||||
| Scientific quality: Are the scientific approach and applied methods valid? Is sufficient information given so other researchers (in principle) can repeat the work? Are the results discussed in an appropriate and balanced way (consideration of related work, including appropriate references)? | ||||
| Presentation quality: Are the scientific results and conclusions presented in a clear, concise, and well-structured way (abstract conveys efficiently the essence of the paper; number and quality of figures/tables; appropriate, fluent, and precise use of English language)? |
Access review, peer review, and interactive public discussion (WESD)
Manuscripts submitted to WES at first undergo a rapid access review by the associate editor (initial manuscript evaluation), which is not meant to be a full scientific review but to identify and sort out manuscripts with obvious major deficiencies in view of the above principal evaluation criteria.
If they are not immediately rejected, they will be posted on the Wind Energy Science Discussions (WESD) website, the discussion forum of WES, where they are subject to full peer review and interactive public discussion.
In the full review and interactive discussion the referees and other interested members of the scientific community are asked to take into account all of the following aspects:
- Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of WES?
- Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
- Is the paper of broad international interest?
- Are clear objectives and/or hypotheses put forward?
- Are the scientific methods valid and clear outlined to be reproduced?
- Are analyses and assumptions valid?
- Are the presented results sufficient to support the interpretations and associated discussion?
- Is the discussion relevant and backed up?
- Are accurate conclusions reached based on the presented results and discussion?
- Do the authors give proper credit to related and relevant work and clearly indicate their own original contribution?
- Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper and is it informative?
- Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary, including quantitative results?
- Is the overall presentation well structured?
- Is the paper written concisely and to the point?
- Is the language fluent, precise, and grammatically correct?
- Are the figures and tables useful and all necessary?
- Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used according to the author guidelines?
- Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
- Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
- Is the amount and quality of supplementary material appropriate and of added value?
Peer-review completion (WES)
At the end of the interactive public discussion, the authors may make their final response and submit a revised manuscript. Based on the referee comments, other relevant comments, and the authors' response in the public discussion, the revised manuscript is re-evaluated and rated by the associate editor. If rated excellent or good in all of the principal criteria and specific aspects listed above, the revised manuscript will normally be accepted for publication in WES. Additional advice from the referees in the evaluation and rating of the revised manuscript will be requested by the associate editor if the public discussion in WESD is not sufficiently conclusive.