After initial evaluation of a submitted manuscript, typically but not always involving external review, the correspondence author will receive a message (by e-mail when possible) from the editorial office, usually accompanied or preceded by a message from the responsible Associate Editor. In most cases these messages will announce either that the manuscript is considered not suitable for publication in GCA or that a revised version of the manuscript is requested, in anticipation of eventual acceptance for publication following suitable revision. The correspondence author will receive the "revisions requested" message, and be given an opportunity to make revisions, even if the Editor and Associate Editor consider that revision is not necessary in a given case.

The "revisions requested" message will refer to this page for general guidelines as presented below. Authors should follow these guidelines except as superseded by instructions from the Editor or the Associate Editor.

Substantive revisions are those which significantly affect the scientific content of a manuscript - background ideas, lines of argument, data, data interpretation, conclusions, etc. - basically, anything other than stenographical changes such as fixing typos, supplying missing references, and so on. Usually reviewers, the Associate Editor or the Editor will indicate which substantive changes are considered most important. Some suggestions, even for substantive changes, are identified as discretionary, i.e. to be made or not made at the authors' discretion. Otherwise, however, when you are preparing a revised version of a manuscript you should respond to each substantive criticism or request by a reviewer or editor either by making an appropriate modification or convincing the Associate Editor and the Editor that the indicated change is unnecessary or inappropriate. Your cover letter should note the changes made or present your argument why they should not be made.

Authors will sometimes wish to make changes to a manuscript in addition to those suggested by reviewers or editors. This is OK, but if the changes go beyond being merely cosmetic the authors should call attention to any such change in the cover letter which accompanies the submission of the revised version. Authors should similarly call the editors' attention to any new data or changes to data in the originally submitted manuscript.

On the title page of the revised manuscript please add a line or two stating that this is a revised version and providing the approximate date on which it is submitted.

The revised version of a manuscript should be accompanied by a cover letter which, at miniumum, describes the authors' response to review and editorial evaluation, including the changes which were made and requested changes which were not made. The letter may also note any other circumstances related to submission of the revised version.

Sometimes a revised manuscript is re-reviewed by one or more of the original reviewers, and in such cases the editors may transmit to the reviewer the authors' cover letter describing response to review, or at least the portion describing response to that particular reviewer's comments. If there is any part of such response that the author would prefer not be transmitted back to the reviewer, those remarks should be separated into a distinct section explicitly and clearly identified as confidential to the editors and not to be disclosed to the reviewer.

Geochimica is an international journal, and English is a foreign language for many of its authors. In the initial evaluation of a manuscript, reviewers and Associate Editors are asked to be as understanding as possible in cases in which authors have difficulty writing in English, and to focus on science as long as the authors' intent is clear. Indeed, reviewers and Associate Editors will often suggest corrections or changes to grammar and compositional style, as appropriate.

For a revised manuscript, one which is expected to be scientifically acceptable if suitable revisions are made, the expected standard for English usage is that language should not be an issue, i.e. that an interested reader should be able to read the manuscript and concentrate on content, without being distracted by grammatical or stylistic errors. To this end, authors who experience difficulty writing in English are encouraged to use the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers and Associate Editor in initial evaluation. To a limited extent, copyeditors can also correct minor errors in English usage. It should be noted, however, that copyeditors, in general, are not scientists, and may misconstrue meaning if called upon to make more than minor grammatical changes. Also, while reviewers and Associate Editors are often very helpful in suggesting language improvements, it is not their responsibility to assure correct grammar and style, nor does the editorial office have the resources to assume this responsibility. Provision of a manuscript in passably good English is basically the authors' responsibility. If necessary, authors should enlist the assistance of a colleague who is fluent in English and who can provide a final edit of the language in the revised version; this colleague should also be scientifically literate and able to converse freely with the authors.

If your manuscript is prepared with one of the acceptable word processors (MS Word or WordPerfect) you should submit your revised version electronically, by website upload or e-mail attachment, whether or not you originally submitted hardcopy. The only exceptions should be if you do not use one of these word processors or if your manuscript uses special symbols/characters that cannot be reproduced in the editorial office. In such case, please submit hardcopy. If you submit electronically, all text material (title page, abstract, main narrative text, references, tables, appendices, and figure captions) should be in a single word processor file.

Figures need not be resubmitted with a revised manuscript unless the figures themselves have been changed from original submission. An exception occurs if you have been advised that your revised version will be re-reviewed and your figures includes images that do not scan well and are not in one of the allowed electronic formats, so that reviewers should receive hardcopy manuscripts and figures.

The accompanying cover letter should be submitted in the same way (electronic or hardcopy) as the main text.

Revised manuscripts should be submitted to the editorial office, as above, but in some cases the Associate Editor will request that you also send the revised manuscript directly to him/her, sometimes in hardcopy. It should not be difficult to comply with this request for electronic submission, and if an AE requests hardcopy, and it is at all feasible, please oblige.

If you expect or hope that the revised version you are submitting will be accepted for publication without need of further revision, you might wish to save yourself some time and/or effort by submitting the revised version in a manner (figures, tables, text format) that will facilitate transmission for publication (see the Production page). Exercise caution, however; sometimes further revisions are requested (see Follow-ups and Pink Blessings).

Authors should prepare and submit revised versions as promptly as is reasonably convenient. The suggested timescale for minor or moderate revisions is a month or less. If more extensive modifications are needed, the suggested timescale for submission of the revised version is three months after revisions are requested. These timescales are suggested to allow the Assoicate Editor (and, if indicated, the reviewers) a resaonable prospect of memory of the manuscript and the nature of the indicated changes.

The timescales in the previous paragraph are suggestions. At the extreme, however, unless an alternative agreement with the Editor has been reached in advance, the DEADLINE for submission of a revised manuscript is six months after transmission of the AE report and invitation to prepare a revised version. If the revised manuscript has not been received within six months the manuscript will be considered to have been withdrawn, and any subsequent resubmission will be treated as a new manuscript for ab initio evaluation, possibly with a new AE and likely with new reviewers.

In most cases the editorial office will send a "long-time-coming" message to the correspondence author to warn that the deadline is approaching. The responsibility for resubmission within six months rests with the authors, however, independently of any such warning message.

Reviewers often expend considerable effort in evaluating a manuscript for no reward other than the satisfaction of helping to keep our scientific community healthy. Often enough, reviewers also correct errors, provide insights and, in general, make constructive comments and suggestions which result in significant improvements to a manuscript.

It is certainly not mandatory, nor should it happen in every case, but when a reviewer (or possibly an Associate Editor) provides particularly significant help in improving a manuscript, it might be nice to acknowledge that. This may be accomplished by adding to the Acknowledgments section a statement such as "We thank John J. Jingleheimer and an anonymous reviewer for .....", or any other phrasing that the authors consider appropriate.

In general, a revised manuscript is not invited unless it is considered that a suitably modified manuscript could be accepted for publication. Authors are cautioned that ultimate acceptance is not guaranteed, however. Sometimes the issue is in doubt, for example, i.e. it is unclear whether the manuscript will become acceptable until some explanation or description is given, or some calculation performed, etc., and revision may be invited on an "opportunity to try" basis. It is rare that a manuscript is rejected after revision was invited and a revised version submitted, but it has happened. Authors are thus cautioned to examine the AE report and accompanying Editor's letter carefully.

Sometimes the first revised version received by the editorial office will be accepted for publication without need of further modification. This is not assured, however. A revised manuscript will be evaluated on its own merits (possibly involving additional external review), and sometimes further revisions will be requested. If this is the case, a follow-up AE report will be posted (identified by the string ...AEreport-x2..., etc., in the filename) and the author will be advised of this through a "follow-up" message from the editorial office.

As a special case, the message from the editorial office may announce a "Pink Blessing". This is a situation in which a manuscript is deemed to need additional but ony minor revision, such as correction of typographical errors, changing of a word or phrase, changing fonts, labels or symbols in figures, and so on. The indicated changes will be described in a posted follow-up AE report, but it is expected that if the authors states, in a cover letter accompanying the next version, that the changes were made as requested, the manuscript will be accepted without need of further examination by the AE.

Irrespective of whether you expect or hope that a revised version you submit will be accepted for publication without further revision, please do not refer to it as the "final" version in your cover letter or on the title page, or use the text string "final" in a filename. This can lead to substantial confusion if it subsequently turns out that it is not really the final version.