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.

Non-data description papers

Except for data description papers, in Wind Energy Science all other types of manuscripts will be evaluated by the reviewers according to the following three criteria:

Principal criteria to be rated excellent to poor:

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)?

Data description papers

For data description papers, in order to guarantee long-lasting value for the scientific community, it is mandatory to ensure that data is of the highest quality and FAIR, i.e findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. It is the aim of WESD to provide a thorough quality and FAIRness assessment for data sets that are already included in permanent repositories.

Thus, when reviewing a data description paper in WESD, reviewers are asked not just to assess the manuscript but, more importantly, the data set itself. The following step-by-step review approach is recommended:

Read the manuscript: are the data and methods presented new? Is there any potential for the data being useful in the future? Are methods and materials described in sufficient detail? Are any references/citations to other data sets or articles missing or inappropriate?
Is the article itself appropriate to support the publication of a data set?
Check the data quality: is the data set accessible via the given identifier? Is the data set complete? Are error estimates and sources of errors given and discussed in the article? Are the accuracy, calibration, processing, etc. at the state of the art? Are common standards used for comparison? Is the data stored in a safe and cyber-secure repository according to FAIR principles?
Is the data set significant – unique, useful, and complete?
Consider article and data set: are there any inconsistencies, implausible assertions, or noticeable problems, which would suggest the data are erroneous. If possible, apply tests (e.g. statistics) to check for plausibility. Unusual formats or other circumstances which impede such tests should be flagged.
Is the data set itself of high quality?
Check the presentation quality: is the data set usable in its current format and size? Are the formal metadata appropriate? Is the length of the article appropriate? Is the overall article well-structured and clear? Is the language consistent and precise? Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used? Are figures and tables correct and of a high quality?
Is the data set publication, as submitted, of high quality?

Finally: By reading the article and downloading the data set, would a reader be able to understand and (re-)use the data set in the future?

In the case of data description papers, the following criteria are rated excellent to poor:

Scientific significance: Is there any potential of the data being useful? This is clearly the most important decision. There are at least three sub-criteria to evaluate:
- Uniqueness: it should not be possible to replicate the experiment, observation or data generation on a routine basis. This is also the case for cost-intensive data sets that might not be replicated due to economic reasons.
- Usefulness: it should be plausible that the data, alone or in combination with other data sets, can be used in future investigations, for the comparison to model outputs or to verify other experiments or observations.
- Completeness: a data set must not be intentionally split, for example, to increase the possible number of publications. It should contain all data that can be reviewed without unnecessary increase of workload and that can be reused in another context by a reader.
Data quality: The data must be ready and accessible for inspection and analysis to make the reviewer's task possible. Even if a submitted data set is the first ever published, its claimed accuracy, the instrumentation employed, and methods of processing should reflect the "state of the art" or the current "best practices". Reviewers will then apply their expert knowledge and experience to perform tests (e.g. statistical tests) and judge whether the data and any possible claimed findings are plausible and do not contain detectable faults.
Presentation quality: The article should describe in a clear, concise and well-structured way the data set and how it was obtained, using an appropriate, fluent, and precise use of the English language. The article text and references should contain all information necessary to evaluate all claims about the data set, whether the claims are explicitly written down in the article, or implicit, through the data being published or their metadata. The authors should point to suitable software or services for simple and free visualization and analysis.

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.