The purpose of the review is to provide the Editors with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration. The review should also supply Authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers so that they are acceptable for publication on Annals of Geophysics. Although confidential comments to the Editors are respected, any remarks that might help to strengthen the paper should be directed to the Authors themselves.

A good review would answer the following questions:

  1. What are the main claims of the paper?
  2. Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
  3. Do the data support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
  4. Who would find this paper of interest? And why?
  5. In what further directions would it be useful to take the current research?


In case of manuscripts deemed worthy of publication, we would appreciate additional advice from the Reviewer on the following:

  1. Is the manuscript written clearly? If not, how could it be improved?
  2. Have the Authors provided adequate proof for their claims without overselling them?
  3. Have the Authors treated the previous literature fairly?