Critical review plays an essential role in maintaining the quality of GSC formal publications and is also of increasing importance in the face of continuing demands to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the GSC's research programs. The following guidelines should be carefully read by all who are called upon to undertake critical review. A Critical Reviewer's Appraisal Form (PUB 3012; go to Forms page to view sample) must be filled out by the critical reviewer in the ESSPPI system (accessible to ESS employees only).

All scientists of the GSC must expect to be assigned manuscripts for critical review as a normal part of their duties and must also expect their manuscripts to be subject to critical review. As a recognized scientific activity, critical review constitutes a part of a scientist's annual productivity. The names of the critical reviewers (two for all formal publications except Current Research, which requires one critical review) are listed in each publication, but this procedure is not followed for reports published in Current Research due to the brevity of most contributions. However, acknowledgment should be made to them in the body of the text.

The critical reviewer should have no hesitation in questioning the value of any illustration or in commenting on any apparent wordiness.

No manuscript should be submitted for critical review until the author considers it complete. Formal critical review does not take the place of peer discussion, which may generate new ideas and new material. Critical appraisal cannot be made on the basis of an incomplete manuscript.

A critical reviewer is not a 'ghost writer' and authors should not expect their reports to be rewritten.

Guidelines for critical reviewers

1. Assignment of critical reviewers is the responsibility of the division director, although this duty may be delegated to another person. The director must ensure that the manuscript is in its final draft form, including clear, unambiguous illustrations, and that it contains a clear statement of how the report meets the project objectives and how it contributes to the mission of the GSC.
   
   
2. It is the responsibility of both the author and critical reviewer to ensure that the factual information is presented clearly and concisely in such a manner that the reader will have no doubt as to its authenticity and accuracy. Authors and critical reviewers may disagree on the conclusions that may be drawn from the factual information presented, but there should be no disagreement as to the facts themselves.
   
   
3. The GSC, as an organization, does not possess or maintain a particular posture regarding geological concepts. The GSC can only reflect the collective wisdom of its past and present scientific staff in consideration of the available facts and in consideration of the evolution in geological concepts occasioned by the discovery of new information. All scientists of the GSC, however, are identified by the scientific community as part of the GSC; thus statements made in approved GSC publications reflect directly upon the GSC. Authors are entitled to present in their manuscripts new hypotheses, and/or variations in previously accepted points of view. Critical reviewers must ensure that such hypotheses are based on the factual information contained in the manuscript. If the factual information lends itself to more than one interpretation, such alternative interpretations should be presented. Authors are entitled to state their preference among multiple working hypotheses, but they must also be prepared to state the basis for their preference.
   
   Critical reviewers have a responsibility to point out alternative hypotheses or points of view to authors where such are warranted. The critical review process, however, is not intended as the vehicle for 'conversion' of an author or critical reviewer to a single point of view if more than one point of view may be reasonably entertained.
   
   
4. Where the required expertise is not available in the GSC, division directors may make use of outside critical reviewers.
   
   
5. Some of the major points that should be considered by a critical reviewer are as follows:
   
   Reports
   1. Do the results presented warrant publication in the form proposed or would another mode of publication be more suitable such as an open file or in a scientific journal?
      
      
   2. Does the report provide any significant advances or does it comprise only confirmatory data and if so is it worth formal publication? Does it meet the objectives of the project?
      
      
   3. Is the organization of the manuscript such that it meets its purpose in the shortest, clearest manner?
      
      
   4. Is the title appropriate and likely to serve its purpose?
      
      
   5. Is the abstract informative and representative of the report and not merely a summary?
      
      
   6. Does the introduction of the report set the stage and provide adequate background for the reader to appreciate and fully understand the communication that follows?
      
      
   7. Are all the tables and figures essential; could some be combined? Can you suggest improvements to them? Can some of the text messages be better conveyed through more well designed illustrations? Pocket items add to the cost and complexity of publishing and should be avoided whenever possible. The large format used by the GSC provides a wide scope for page-size figures.
      
      
   8. Do the text or illustrations contain any errors of fact, interpretation, or calculation?
      
      
   9. Has the author cited the pertinent, and only the pertinent, literature?
      
      
   10. Has the author made use of material already presented in another publication, and, if so, has this been adequately referenced? Could any parts of the report be considered as dual publication? Has the author given full credit to other authors whose data and conclusions have been used?
       
       
   11. Do geographic or geological names that are referred to in the text and with which the reader may not be familiar appear on one or more of the maps or illustrations?
       
       
   12. Is the report too long? Is it padded? Should parts be deleted or condensed? Should some of the supporting data be treated as an appendix, or released as an open file?
       
       
   13. Should some sections be expanded in order to convey the message adequately?
       
       
   14. Does geophysical, geochemical, stratigraphic, geological, and biological terminology meet accepted standards?
       
       
   15. Are measurements expressed in SI units wherever possible?
       
       
   16. Does the critical reviewer's experience allow an assessment of all aspects of the report or are there sections that should be reviewed by someone else?
       
   
   
   Maps
   1. Are there any geological conflicts or geometrically unlikely interpretations?
      
      
   2. Check stratigraphic symbols to determine that faults portrayed as thrust or normal are indeed thrust or normal.
      
      
   3. Check cross-sections in detail against mapping along the line of section.
      
      
   4. The reviewer should recommend the appropriate scale for the map and should ensure that there is no duplication, so that maps are not released at different scales, but with identical information.
      

All critical reviewers must, as part of their responsibility, submit a brief, written evaluation of the report (in the critical reviewer's form) to the division sponsoring the publication. In the rare cases in which a critical reviewer and an author cannot reconcile their differences, a division may send the manuscript to yet another critical reviewer for evaluation, and the name of the first reviewer will not be listed in the publication as a critical reader, as such listing implies general agreement with the scientific content of the report. Written comments and the author's response should be forwarded to the division for use by the scientific editor. Division directors should ensure that the author sees the written evaluations of the critical reviewer and makes the appropriate corrections.