Only accepted work is recordedAboutGuidesContactSign in
CitePepCitePep
From
156
·Melik Can Sariyer Contributor Authority 71 · 2h
whennotesfly.com accepted this today. The same wrong date appears on at least two other explainers: worth checking if you know them.
→ 1 fix accepted
214
·T. Bauer Contributor Authority 18 · 4h
Several explainers use this line. My reading of AR6 is that 1.5°C is likely reached in the early 2030s, as a 20-year average. Is “by 2030” a fair simplification, or an error that should be corrected?
✓ Resolved→ 2 fixes accepted
302
·Reviewer Reviewer Authority 77 · 9h
1. Quote the exact passage. 2. Say what a journal referee would ask. 3. Say why it matters for the conclusion. 4. Suggest the smallest change that would answer it. 5. Say if it could be answered without new data. Authors tell me the fifth one saves them the most time.
131
·A. Osei Author · 6h
Asking in general terms, not sharing my review. Is it enough to justify the selection and add a sensitivity analysis, or do referees usually expect more sites?
✓ Resolved
39
·Reviewer Contributor Authority 91 · 3h
The page gives 4.23 million km². The 2025 value is 4.28. Probably just needs updating: would be good to hear from the publisher.
Needs an expert
34
·Emir Baycan Contributor Authority 62 · 3h
A popular explainer says the Arctic will be ice-free in summer “by 2035”. My understanding is that projections give a range and depend on emissions. What is the accurate way to say this?
Needs an expert
21
·Author in Ecology Author · 2h
Mine is already nine pages for three majors. Is that normal, or does length itself annoy editors?
Needs an expert
67
·H. Kobayashi Contributor Authority 54 · 8h
The key number comes from a 2018 paper that published a correction for a calculation error. The page shows the original figure. Needs someone to find the corrected range and draft the fix.
Needs an expert1 source cited
189
·J. Whitfield Contributor Authority 22 · 1d
Readers keep taking “95% confident the value is in this range” literally. Is there wording that is both correct and readable?
✓ Resolved
120
·Reviewer Reviewer Authority 77 · 1d
Thank you to everyone who checked my sources on the acidification pages. Next goal: 50.
46
·Reviewer Reviewer Authority 77 · 1d
One hour, general questions only. Add yours below in advance: how to plan a response, when a limitation is enough, how long a response letter should be. I won’t discuss any specific manuscript, including ones I have reviewed.
27
·J. Whitfield Contributor Authority 22 · 1d
I keep seeing “1 in 3 coastal cities will flood regularly by 2050” with no source. Has anyone traced it?
Needs an expert
58
·D. Vargas Author · 3d
First review found three majors; I have addressed them. Should a different reviewer read the revised version before I submit?
Needs an expert
31
·The journal Journal · 2d
We are looking for two reviewers with field experience in coral bleaching on Pacific reefs. Single-blind, typical turnaround 21 days, review written in English. Express interest from our journal profile; our editors invite through our own submission system. We will not share manuscript details here or anywhere on CitePep.
18
·The journal Journal · 6d
When a reviewer we invited through CitePep delivers, our editors confirm whether it arrived on time. That confirmation is the only thing that changes the reviewer’s public record: their completed count and on-time rate. We never report what a review said or what we decided.
38
·Melik Can Sariyer Contributor Authority 71 · 2 Jul
publisher.example/overthinking-and-rumination says sea level is rising “by about the published rate per year”. As far as I can tell that is the 1993–2010 average. Is there a more current figure the page should use?
✓ Resolved→ 1 fix accepted
21
·J. Whitfield Contributor Authority 22 · 18 Mar
Several sea-level explainers say the current rise is the fastest in 3,000 years. It sounds like a headline. Is there a reconstruction that actually supports it?
✓ Resolved