This page primarily provides logistical information and advice addressed to authors after they have submitted manuscripts to Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. Other pages on this website are addressed to authors and prospective authors seeking advice on the scope of the journal and on manuscript preparation and submission procedures.

All new manuscript submissions will be acknowledged promptly. Acknowledgment will be by e-mail to the correspondence author (or by normal post if no e-mail address is provided), usually on the same day as receipt, but in any case within three working days of receipt. If you do not receive an acknowledgment within three days of electronic submission, or within three days of plausible delivery of hardcopy submission, it is likely that something is wrong and you are encouraged to contact the editorial office directly to inquire whether the manuscript has been received.

The acknowledgment message will be a brief form letter which primarily calls attention to this page of the website. It will, however, also include a unique manuscript number (uppercase letter "W" followed by four digits) for your submission and codes for electronic manuscript access on this website (see below). Any unusual circumstances will be noted in this message.

All manuscripts, however submitted, will be converted to pdf-format files and posted on this website. Manuscripts submitted as pdf files will be posted directly. Manuscripts or manuscript segments submitted as compatible-format electronic source files (word processor, spreadsheet, graphics) will be printed to Adobe Acrobat for conversion to pdf files. Manuscripts submitted as hardcopy will be scanned.

The posted file for a given manuscript is the "master copy"; in general, the exact same file is accessed by authors, reviewers, Associate Editors and editorial office staff. Some reviewers request hardcopy manuscripts. If the manuscript was submitted in multiple-copy hardcopy, we will accomodate these reviewers by mailing them one of the submitted copies; if the manuscript was submitted electronically we will print hardcopy for the reviewer from the posted pdf file.

The posted files may be opened with the Adobe Acrobat Reader, among other programs. In most cases, Reader version 4.0 or higher will be required. If you encounter an error message similar to "invalid colorspace", or some pages are blank or totally black, the problem is likely that you are using an earlier version of the Reader. The Reader can be downloaded free from the Adobe website www.adobe.com.

Each manuscript will have its own page (see Access below) on our website, on which all its files will be posted. This page will be maintained for as long as its manuscript remains active. It will be removed when the manuscript, if accepted for publication, is transmitted to Elsevier for publication or, if rejected, for a short time (usually about one month) after notification.

Each manuscript has a page on this website. To access a manuscript, click the Manuscript Access button in the navigation bar at the top of most pages. This leads to the Manuscript Access page, which contains a textbox in which you should type the manuscript number you want and then click the button labeled Request. A dialog box will appear requesting input of a username and password. After you have entered these, click the button labeled OK to get to the page for your manuscript.

The manuscript number, username and password will be supplied in your submission acknowledgment message. The manuscript number is always five characters: an upper-case "W" followed by four digits (e.g. W9876). The username is always seven characers: lower-case "a", hyphen, and the five-character manuscript number (e.g. a-W9876). The password is a six-character alphanumeric string generated by use of a randomizer (e.g. abCD12). When you seek access to your manuscript page the recognition routines for manuscript number, username and password are all case-sensitive: "A" is not the same thing as "a", and so on, so you must enter the correct case.

The page for a manuscript can also be accessed by direct entry of the URL gca.wustl.edu/manuscripts/pdf/Wnnnn/index.html, where Wnnnn is the manuscript number. The same dialog box as mentioned above will appear before you can access this page, i.e. you will still need username and password.

The page for a given manuscript will have a label announcing the manuscript number and a series of links, one for every version of the manuscript that we have. This will include multiple versions if you submitted them (e.g.double-spaced and single-spaced) and as many revised versions as we have recieved. In each case the link itself will be just the manuscript number, but it will be accompanied by brief descriptive text (e.g. "manuscript, double-spaced") and the date on which it was posted. There will also be one link to just the title page plus abstract. What happens when you click one of these links depends on how your browser is set - it will either open the file (assuming you have the Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in) or download it to your computer.

The set of links to the various versions of your manuscript posted on our website is exactly the same as the set seen by your Associate Editor, and also exactly the same as the set seen by reviewers and prospective reviewers (but note that AEs and reviewers have different ways of getting there, ways that do not involve your username or password). The TitlePage-Abstract file is provided as a convenience to prospective reviewers (and AEs) who want to see what the paper is about without necessarily opening or downloading the whole manuscript.

There will be one more link on your manuscript page, labeled Reviews and Calendar. Clicking this link gets you to another page, the Reviews and Calendar directory. This page will initially contain just one link, the one to your Calendar. When they become available, however, this page is where you will find your reviews and AE report(s), each with its own link. (Note that AEs, of course, also have access to these files. Reviewers do not.)

The editorial office will not disclose the author-access password to anyone other than the correspondence author or, if requested, to co-authors. The correspondence author will likely wish to share the password with co-authors. We will make no attempt to police sharing the password with anyone else, but authors should remember that their password allows access not only to the manuscript but also to the reviews, AE report and calendar.

When you receive your acknowledgment your manuscript is already posted on the website and it is possible that a prospective AE or reviewer will be examining it within hours. We request that you examine the posted version of your manuscript IMMEDIATELY and let us know IMMEDIATELY if there is anything wrong with it. If we scanned your hardcopy, things that might be wrong include missing or inverted pages, illegible scans, etc. If you submitted an electronic source file, things that might be wrong include format controls or mistranslated special characters, especially if you are using special alphabets or third-party equation editors, etc.

If there is a problem and it's our mistake, we'll fix it. Often, however, authors examining their own posted manuscripts will find their own mistakes - typographical errors in text or tables, missing footnotes or references, scrambled figure captions, and so on. Please do not ask editorial office staff to fix these things for you: It will work much better if you fix such errors at your end and send it in again.

In most cases the first step in the evaluation process is assignment of an Associate Editor to oversee the rest of the process. The Executive Editor will designate an Associate Editor who will be asked to accept this assignment, exercising due regard for the disciplinary area in which the manuscript lies and for the suggestions offered by the authors. The AE may accept the assignment or decline it for a variety of reasons (workload, closeness of expertise, previously unknown conflict of interest, commitment to fieldwork or research cruise, etc.). If an AE declines, another will be asked, and so on, until one accepts.

When an AE has accepted the assignment, the next step is obtaining reviews. In general, the AE nominates reviewers, often starting with the suggestions offered by the authors. Each prospective reviewer is asked to perform a review. Some AEs make the requests themselves, more often the request is an e-mail message sent by the editorial office. Prospective reviewers are advised of the manuscript title and authors in the request message, and also given username and password to access the TitlePage-Abstract as well as the full manuscript (see Access) on the website. If a prospective reviewer declines, or does not respond within a reasonable time, we will ask another prospect. Except in unusual and uncommon circumstances we request reviewers to complete their reviews within one month. Reviewers are invited to access manuscripts through the website, but also advised that we will send hardcopy on request. Most reviewers use website access, but a significant minority request hardcopy. Occasionally a prospective reviewer wishes to see title page and abstract before deciding about the review but is unable or unwilling to use the website to do so; in such cases we fax the title page and abstract.

Normally we seek promise of three reviews (i.e. "external" reviews, from individuals other than the AE). In most cases we do obtain promise and realization of three reviews. In a significant minority of cases we act with only two reviews, either because additional review is deemed unnecessary or because one reviewer fails to deliver a review, even after reasonable time and reminder, and is abandoned. In very rare cases we act with just one review; also in rare cases we will obtain more than three reviews.

Authors who may be interested in the instructions and guidelines offered to reviewers are invited to examine Information for Reviewers, which is also accessible from the Information and Guidelines index page.

Results of reviewer and editorial evaluation are conveyed to the authors in conjenction with The AE Report.

Not all manuscripts, even those submitted as Articles, are sent out for external review and experience this process. In some cases the Executive Editor or a prospective Associate Editor will conclude that a manuscript will or should not be accepted for publication and that this conclusion will be unaffected by review. In such cases, where feasible only with the concurrence of two Associate Editors and the Executive Editor, the manuscript may be rejected without review, usually promptly after submission. Such cases account for only a small fraction of submissions. The most common reasons for such action are judgement that the subject of the manuscript lies outside the scope of the journal or lacks the necessary broad relevance to transcend a geographically narrow focus. Also, however, but only very rarely, the same action may reflect judgment of insufficient scientific quality or originality.

Each manuscript has a Calendar, which is a simple and short text file that records the dates of significant events in the processing of a manuscript: Receipt by the editorial office, acceptance of appointment by an AE, the date on which a complete set (usually three) of reviews is promised, receipt of individual reviews, etc. Its primary purpose is to allow authors to see that progress is being made between the time that submission is acknowledged and the time that results of review become available or a judgement regarding disposition can be made. The calendar resides in the Reviews and Calendar directory associated with each individual manuscript.

In most cases, when external reviews are complete the Associate Editor will write a report summarizing reviewer opinion, presenting his/her overall evaluation (based on his/her own reading of the manuscript and the advice of the reviewers), and formulating a recommendation for what to do next. This report will be posted in the Reviews and Calendar directory for the manuscript; the individual external reviews will also be posted in this directory at the same time. The availability of the reviews and AE report will be announced in a letter (generally e-mail) from the Executive Editor to the correspondence author, which will also describe what action is to be taken with regard to this manuscript.

While a spectrum of results is possible, action taken at this time falls within one of two categories: Either a revised version is invited (see below, and also the Revisions page), or the manuscript is declined as unsuitable for publication (but also see Resubmission below). (In rare occasions, the authors may be asked to respond to some query or request before that decision is made.)

In most cases, invitation of a revised version reflects an evaluation that a suitably revised manuscript will be judged acceptable for publication. The AE's report and the Executive Editor's letter will describe the nature of the revisions considered appropriate. In general, it will be expected that the authors should respond to all of the AE's and the reviewers' substantive comments, either by modifying the manuscript or presenting, in a cover letter, an argument why modification in response to a given comment is unnecessary. The extent of revision requested may vary substantially. In some cases it may be considered that revision is not necessary at all (even in such cases the authors will be offered the opportunity to make changes on their own, if they wish), in others the indicated changes may range from minor through moderate and extensive to "major overhaul".

The suitability of a revised manuscript will be evaluated on its own merits. This re-evaluation will involve further appraisal by the AE and may also involve again seeking the advice of the original reviewers. Whether or not further external review is sought, it is possible that a second (follow-up) AE report, advising further revision, will be produced. This may happen more than once, although if authors and editors cannot reach agreement after two or three rounds of revision it may be judged that convergence is unlikely and the manuscript may then be declined.

Although the intent is that revision is invited only when it is anticipated that a suitably revised manuscript can be accepted, sometimes it is difficult to judge this issue in advance of the actual revision. Thus, it may be considered that the manuscript may (but only may) become acceptable after revision, depending on provision of documentation of some sample or experimental procedure, or performance of some calculation or measurement, and so on. In some such cases, revision may be invited on an "opportunity to try" rather than a "presumption of acceptance" basis. Sometimes this works, but sometimes it doesn't; it is not common that a manuscript is rejected after revision is invited, but it does happen. The editors will try to be clear about the nature of the situation, and authors are urged to read the AE report and the Executive Editor's letter carefully before committing substantial resources to revision.

Sometimes the bottom-line evaluation of a manuscript is that it perhaps reflects good underlying scientific merit which may support eventual acceptance for publication, but that the manuscript itself is unsuitable for publication. This may be because it is deemed poorly written, because some key measurement or calculation is lacking, some critical argument must be explored, etc. In such case, editorial action may be to decline the manuscript but nevertheless to encourage the authors to consider rewriting for ab initio resubmission. This action (rather than inviting revision on an "opportunity to try" basis) may be taken in reflection of uncertainty about eventual acceptance. More commonly, it reflects a judgement that a successful successor manuscript would have to be so different from the original that it would have to be, in effect, a "new" manuscript, or that the original manuscript does not provide an adequate basis for scientific evaluation of a plausible successor manuscript. Authors must recognize that encouraging them to consider resubmission implies no assurance that a resubmitted manuscript will be accepted. In practice, in many cases a resubmission is evaluated more favorably than its predecessor and is ultimately accepted for publication; in many cases, the result is the same as the first time.

When new files become available for a given manuscript, e.g. reviews, AE report, a revised version, etc., these files are posted on the website and made accessible by adding links to the index page or the Reviews and Calendar page for that manuscript. In general the files are posted and the links added before authors are informed that they are available. Often, however, when authors go to that page to examine the new files they do not see the new links.

In almost all cases, the reason that authors cannot see recently added links is because their browsers are using cached copies of the manuscript pages. Browsers often store page information in a cache and use the cache (because it's faster) rather than get a new copy of the page over the internet. To force your browser to get a new page from our server, clear your cache and reload/refresh the page.

Clearing cache and reloading is done differently in different browsers. In recent versions of Netscape, for example, from the Edit Menu select Preferences, then Advanced in the resulting dialog box, then Cache under Advanced, click both the disk cache and memory cache buttons, and finally click Reload on the main toolbar. Other browsers will require other procedures. If all else fails, use a different computer, or a different browser, one not previously used to view your manuscript page.

We recognize that authors are often anxious about the time required for the initial evaluation process, and we try to keep this time reasonable. To minimize transit times we use electronic transmission of manuscripts among editorial office, authors, Associate Editors and, in most cases, reviewers. We closely monitor progress, or lack thereof, in the review process, we remind delinquent reviewers of their promises and responsibilities, and when necessary we will abandon delinquent reviews rather than wait indefinitely.

We also ask reasonable patience and understanding from authors. It is sometimes necessary to successively ask multiple AEs to secure agreement to handle a paper, it is nearly always necessary to make multiple requests of prospective reviewers, and AEs and reviewers are human too, and experience laboratory crises, student examinations, babies, illnesses, field trips and conferences. Authors are commonly reviewers, and vice versa, and we ask that each appreciate what it is like to wear the other's hat.

We strive for an initial review/evaluation period not longer than three months. We often return reviews in a shorter time, but we also often do not. The average time is close to three months, but the sigma is large (see Manuscript Statistics on the What's New page). We have gone to some lengths to seal any cracks through which manuscripts might fall, and we provide the Calendar to let authors see that something really is happening.

Resubmission as used in the present context means submitting (a rejected manuscript) to the editorial office and starting all over again from the beginning - relogging with a new manuscript number, new access codes, likely new reviewers and AE, etc. To stress the "from the beginning" aspect we often use the phrase "resubmission ab initio". Sometimes the editors will encourage authors to consider doing this, but even without explicit encouragement any author of a manuscript which has been rejected can resubmit to get a fresh start (at least once). No advance permission from the editor is necessary to resubmit.

Authors resubmitting a previously rejected paper should take particular care to suggest at least two appropriate AEs and several appropriate reviewers. Besides naming specific individuals authors may suggest the same (perhaps anonymous) reviewers as the first time, or request that we ask different reviewers, and similarly may suggest the same AE that handled the paper the first time or request anyone other than that AE. The editorial office will attend to such suggestions and requests as well as possible but cannot, of course, make assurances that any specific individual will agree to serve as AE or reviewer.

Authors intending to resubmit are well advised to take reviewer and AE comments as constructive criticism and rewrite their manuscript in that light before resubmission. This is not required, however, and in principle an author could resubmit the same manuscript that was already rejected but ask for consideration by a different AE and/or reviewers. Similarly, since resubmission is a fresh start authors are under no obligation to rebut or explain response to AE/reviewer comments on the original submission (although they would be well advised to do so if they intend to suggest the same AE and/or reviewers).

Sometimes authors of a rejected manuscript consider that the rejection was an error, possibly because the AE or reviewers just didn't understand or take the time to understand, sometimes because they think the AE or reviewers are unqualified to judge the work, or are biased or hostile.

An author's natural impulse in such a situation is to write a letter, sometimes a very long and detailed letter, to the Editor and/or AE, to protest the rejection and state the author's case. In most circumstances this does not work and is just a waste of everybody's time, especially the authors'. It works only rarely, and only when the central issue of dispute is something very specific and black-and-white: The statement of or solution to an equation, for example, or how to propagate errors, or the value of a thermodynamic constant, and so on. More often the primary reason for rejection is more subjective: It's old news, for example, or not sufficiently different from prior publications, or it's only regionally relevant, or it's excessively speculative because the observations do not justify the conclusions, and so on. Thee are value judgements, and editors and reviewers are unlikely to change their minds because the authors see things differently. In such cases there are two more effective appeals processes.

One is simply to resubmit, as described above. This is the best route when an author recognizes that the criticisms of the original version have some validity and that the manuscript can be improved by rewriting in light of these criticisms.

The second path is a variant of resubmission: With the Editor's permission, the manuscript will be deemed resubmitted in its present condition, re-logged, and assigned to a new AE. The new AE will be given access to all materials relating to the original manuscript: Not just the manuscript itself but also all reviews and correspondence (including AE reports). The new AE will then be asked for a recommendation in light of all this information. It is possible that the new AE will again recommend rejection, but it is also possible that he/she will recommend acceptance, or probable acceptance after (further) revision, or possibly new reviews. It is possible that this will take less time than ab initio resubmission, if further external reviews are not involved, but this is generally a lot of material for the AE to absorb and it may take some time. This reconsideration procedure may cost the authors some time, since they may not submit elsewhere while the paper is under consideration for GCA, but it requires no further effort. Conversely, it does not allow for any modifications in response to criticisms, so it should be invoked only when authors are confident that the existing version of the manuscript should be sufficient to warrant acceptance.

Authors requesting such reconsideration should present a carefully considered list of AEs whom they consider competent and unbiased, and (if asked) a comparable list of reviewers. This is important because authors should not complain a second time that the new AE and/or reviewers are unqualified or biased.