Policies

Seismica publishes original, novel, peer-reviewed research in the fields of seismology, earthquake science, and related disciplines. Seismica is a community-driven, diamond open-access journal. Articles are free to publish and free to read without a subscription, and authors retain full copyright.

Key values	Seismica's new approach to publishing: how and why?
Accessible	Seismica believes that science should be accessible to everyone, and has created an open platform for sharing peer-reviewed research in seismology and earthquake science. By removing all fees, we encourage the exchange of knowledge with the global community.
Transparent	Seismica publicly recognizes the volunteer labor of reviewers, editors, typesetters and contributors, along with the wide breadth of teamwork needed in research. Our transparent process includes publishing reviews and authorship contributions alongside research articles and promoting best practices in open data and software, helping research to achieve its full potential.
Respectful	All parties must agree to our Ethics Policies, and disrespectful language is not tolerated. Seismica aims to combat reviewer fatigue by only sending papers out for review that meet our guidelines, which are made available to authors before submission. We support reviewers, editors, and authors to achieve an inclusive, responsive, and productive publishing process.
Credible	The Seismica community encompasses a diverse, expansive network drawing on the varied perspectives and insights of our contributors. Our strength lies in our community's accessible, equitable, and credible approach. Seismica's editors, who span the breadth of seismology and earthquake science, emphasize the importance of a rigorous review process and holistic evaluations.
Progressive	Many excellent scientific efforts in earthquake science and seismology exist outside the scope of traditional journals. Seismica recognizes the value of less-traditional formats such as field campaign reports, null results, and software articles, and will lead the publishing world in appreciating these valuable scientific and technical insights. Documented null results that yield valuable scientific & technical insights allow high-risk research to be rewarded.

Seismica's scope includes a wide range of topics in seismological and earthquake sciences. Below we provide a non-exhaustive list of topics that fall within the scope of Seismica. Although Seismica recognizes that such a discipline-based classification might not be the best way to represent the full breadth of Seismica's scientific scope, this broad list does provide an initial framework for potential authors to ascertain whether Seismica might be a suitable venue for publishing their work. Whether or not the topic of a submitted manuscript falls within the scope of Seismica may be left to the discretion of the handling editor. Demand for publishing articles in areas not covered by existing editors may provide impetus to expand the editorial scope to include additional subjects.

Fault-slip and earthquake source phenomena: Earthquake source seismology, transient/aseismic slip phenomena (e.g. slow slip events), rupture dynamics, fault geometry and architecture, induced and triggered seismicity, earthquake geodesy and remote sensing, fault mechanics, fault zone characterization and friction, earthquake reports, statistical seismology, earthquake early warning.

Earthquake records: archeo- and paleoseismology, historical and contemporary earthquake accounts, felt reports, fault geomorphology, seismotectonics, earthquake source processes from active and exhumed faults and laboratory experiments, geochronology of faults.

Imaging and Monitoring the Earth: seismic tomography and structure, receiver functions, seismic anisotropy, active/passive source seismology, seismic noise imaging, urban and shallow subsurface seismology, volcano-seismology.

Theoretical and computational seismology: advances in seismology driven by numerical modeling including high-performance computing, by forward and inverse theories, uncertainty analysis and machine learning.

Beyond Earth-tectonic applications: cryoseismology, urban and environmental seismology, tsunami nucleation and propagation, ionosphere seismology, planetary and helioseismology, seismo-acoustics, infrasound, forensic seismology, nuclear test ban treaty monitoring, landslide monitoring.

Techniques and instrumentation: seismometry, field deployment reports, seismic networks and arrays, ground motion instrumentation (accelerometers, rotational sensors, GNSS), rotational seismology, fiber-optic technologies (Distributed Acoustic Sensing), seismic signal processing techniques.

Earthquake engineering and engineering seismology: seismic hazard and risk evaluation, strong motion characterization, site response analysis, geotechnical earthquake engineering, ground motion simulation, seismic response of structures and infrastructure, earthquake scenarios, seismic design codes, seismic protection.

Community engagement, communication and outreach: societal awareness and disaster preparedness, seismology education, citizen and participatory science, hazard and risk communication, publicly accessible datasets, data analysis tools.

Please note that this list is non-exhaustive. If you are unsure whether your article is appropriate for submission in Seismica, we recommend contacting Seismica's Board (info@seismica.org).

Seismica publishes one volume containing two issues every year (Issue 1: January-June; Issue 2: July-December) as well as Special Issues (Issue 3+) as proposed by the community.

Seismica strives to maintain best practices in publication ethics. We support the work of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and have relied on its expertise to develop guidelines for authors, reviewers and editors, processes to identify ethical concerns and guidelines to respond to ethical issues. Ethical oversight is managed by the Executive Editors who delegate specific duties to other members of the Seismica Board. Authors, Reviewers, and Editors are responsible for upholding these guidelines throughout the execution of their duties. Authors, Reviewers, and members of the Seismica Board agree to abide by Seismica's Code of Conduct.

1. Authorship and Attribution

Each author of a manuscript submitted to Seismica is expected to have made considerable contributions to the final work, such that the work would be meaningfully different if that person's contributions were removed. Seismica allows a wide range of contributing authorship roles so that critical work that produces work remains valued. Ways of contributing include:

• Conception or design of the study,

• Administration and acquisition of funding, resources, and access which enabled the research,

• Design and validation of methods and results,

• Acquisition, curation, analysis, or interpretation of data,

• Creation of new software used in the study,

• Leadership through supervision and oversight which enabled the authors to perform the work,

• Drafting the work or substantively revising it.

Every author must also:

• Have approved the submitted version of the manuscript (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study),

• Have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding authors of published papers must provide their Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID); co-authors are encouraged to provide ORCiDs.

Authors are required to include a statement of responsibility (author contribution statement) in the manuscript, for any type of article, that specifies the contribution of every author using the CRediT taxonomy. Contributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgements section. The acknowledgments section may also indicate: the equal contributions of multiple authors; involvement of community participants; recognition of indigenous contributions via Traditional Knowledge Labels or similar.

The corresponding author must confirm that all the listed co-authors have agreed on all of the contents, including the author list with affiliations and author contribution statements. Seismica's manuscript handling system mainly channels communication to the corresponding author who is responsible for sharing updates about the publication process with coauthors.

Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors or the deletion or addition of authors, must be approved by every author, before final approval by the Handling editor. Changes are not allowed on Fast Reports and should be completed by the time of submission of revised manuscripts (prior to acceptance and DOI assignment).

Researchers may lose the capacity to approve a final manuscript or may pass away before submission, raising ethical questions about authorship. If a contributor is unable to give consent due to incapacity or death, they may not strictly meet the criteria for authorship. However, we aim to ensure that researchers are not deprived of credit for their contributions due to illness or death.

Authors are advised to consider the following questions when deciding whether to include incapacitated or deceased coauthors. If the answer to either question is 'no', the contributor can be included in the Author Contributions statement and the Acknowledgements, but should not be listed as an author on the manuscript:

• Considering the total contribution of the coauthor, and particularly the extent of the coauthor's involvement after they became unable to participate or approve, were they likely to have supported the direction of the work up to submission?

• Was the coauthor significantly intellectually engaged in the work, such as contributing to its design or hypothesis testing?

If feasible, we suggest that authors obtain consent from immediate family, heirs, or estate to use the name of the incapacitated or deceased coauthor and acknowledge this consent in the Acknowledgement section. If appropriate, clarify in the Acknowledgements which parts, if any, were completed without participation or consent of the incapacitated or deceased coauthor.

After acceptance, the corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all content in the proof, including co-authors' names, contact information, funding details, and affiliations.

Seismica volunteers including production editors, handling editors and copyeditors, and reviewers (if they choose to be named) are listed in the article record and may also be included in the Acknowledgements section at the author's discretion. Anonymous reviewers are not mentioned in the article record but may be thanked in the Acknowledgements.

2. Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest-also referred to as competing interests-are defined as financial and non-financial interests that could directly undermine or be perceived to undermine the objectivity, integrity, and value of a publication or its review through a potential influence on the judgments and actions of authors or reviewers concerning objective data presentation, analysis, and interpretation. Having a connection to the authors or work does not automatically prohibit a reviewer or editor from participating in the review process for a specific article; decisions are made on a case-by-case basis relying on full disclosure. Specific examples of conflicts of interest of concern to Seismica include, but are not limited to:

• previous supervisory relationships, in particular a PhD advisor role or a PhD student role, but potentially others

• employment by the same institution/department currently or within 3 years

• co-authorship on a publication (including papers under review or in preparation) within the last 3 years

• co-principal investigatorship on a grant within the last 3 years (from the last date of active funding and including any proposals under review or in preparation)

These examples are only guidelines, however, and we ask authors, reviewers, and editors to make an honest consideration of any other potential conflicts of interest that may not meet the specific criteria listed above. Information about personal conflicts that are raised with editors will remain confidential. Funding disclosures will be published in the named section of the article.

The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a competing interests statement on behalf of all the authors. We recognize that large collaborative projects may sometimes produce publications with large author lists which may unreasonably limit the potential pool of reviewers, even in instances when a potential reviewer had limited contact/interaction with an author submitting a new manuscript to Seismica. See Submission and formatting checklist for more details.

Seismica asks peer-reviewers/handling editors to inform executive editors of any related interests, including financial interests, that might be perceived as relevant. Editors will consider these statements when weighing reviewers' recommendations. By submitting a manuscript, agreeing to a peer review, or handling a manuscript as an editor, you agree that you understand Seismica's competing interest policy.

3. Availability of data, materials, and codes

An important aspect of advancing the field is the reproducibility of scientific results and the verifiability of claims made in a manuscript. Data, codes, and other materials that form the basis of a study must therefore be accessible and understandable. Authors are expected to act in the spirit of Open Science and make their data/codes available when publishing with Seismica. In the following section, we lay out Seismica's philosophy for ensuring data availability. For best practices to comply with this philosophy, see the Submission and formatting checklist.

Digital data. In the majority of cases, data analyzed in a given study comes in a digital form. Examples include seismometer and GNSS time series, laboratory sensor readings, and satellite imagery. If the data are derived from a long-term public repository, such as the IRIS DMC, citing this public data source is sufficient. In the case of substantial data processing efforts (such as computing cross-correlation stacks or Insar imagery), storing the processed data in a separate public repository is preferred practice. Data repositories should be DOI citable and guarantee long-term archiving (see the Submission and formatting checklist). Authors are invited to reach out to one of Seismica's editors for inquiries and assistance regarding data availability.

For any type of data, metadata and documentation are critical for the correct interpretation of the data. The data repository should include a readme file or other forms of documentation explaining how the data files should be read, what kinds of data they contain, and any metadata associated with them. Ideally, scripts are provided that demonstrate how to properly access the data files. In the case of CSV files and other human-readable formats, it often suffices to merely explain the different columns, whereas binary files and specialized file formats require substantially more details to be accessible and interpretable. It is strongly recommended to use non-proprietary or cross-platform compatible file formats.

With the continuing advancement of computational and instrumental resources, data volumes become increasingly larger. Particularly for large-N seismic arrays (e.g. Distributed Acoustic Sensing arrays) and high-resolution supercomputing, the volume of raw data produced often exceeds several Terabytes. It may be impractical or infeasible to make all of these data publicly available. In such cases, authors are expected to make available the derived products from which the claims made in a study can be verified. For example, while it may be infeasible to archive the raw data recorded by a large-N nodal array deployed for microseismicity detection, the catalog of microseismic detections, template waveforms used in template matching, and extracted data of selected seismic events fall within the range of public archiving possibilities.

In the case of (potentially) privacy-sensitive data, such as data derived from Raspberry Shake seismometers placed in houses, drone imagery in urban areas, and public enquiries, the authors should take care to safeguard the privacy of individuals who did not consent to making the data available. In the examples given above, authors could consider masking segments of data, or applying differential privacy algorithms (even when only aggregated statistics are presented).

For proprietary and embargoed data, see the corresponding subsection below.

Codes and scripts. Seismica requests authors to not only provide access to their data, but also to the scripts and computer codes that were used to process and analyze these data. The most convenient way to meet this requirement is to combine the data and the corresponding scripts/codes in the same self-contained repository. Seismica recognizes that not all computer codes or scripts are central to a study, but codes or scripts that are important should be provided with clear documentation, or a compelling explanation for their absence. In the case of specialized hardware requirements, it suffices to provide the relevant codes with an additional note on the hardware restrictions.

There are various degrees of rigor to which one can document and present their codes, but the minimum requirement that all codes should meet is that they can be executed to reproduce the results presented in the manuscript upon following the instructions presented in the documentation.

GitHub and other code repositories are convenient for code sharing, documentation, and collaboration, but they do not provide a DOI. This is because DOIs are intended to be associated with "frozen" content (i.e. content that does not change over time), while many code platforms facilitate dynamic repositories that may undergo active maintenance and development. Since the results of a study do not evolve along with changes in the code, this could lead to incompatibilities between the claims made in a study and the results obtained from running a code. To get the best of both worlds, authors should consider uploading a static copy of their code to a long-term archiving repository while also mentioning in the manuscript where the latest version of the code can be found (and the exact version that was used in the study).

Other materials. A wide range of potential types and formats of data, samples, records and analytical reference standards may be associated with papers in Seismica for which there are no widely used accessible repositories. In these cases, authors are urged to make the supporting materials freely available for download if appropriate. Physical samples should be adequately cataloged in long-term storage and access, with instructions on how to query or access the samples. Authors should also note if samples were completely consumed or destroyed during analysis.

Proprietary and embargoed data. Even though restricted data access goes against the Open Science philosophy, there are sometimes additional restrictions that prevent one from making datasets publicly available. The possible reasons for this are diverse, ranging from geopolitical conditions to corporate non-disclosure agreements to privacy regulations. When access to (part of) the data is restricted, the authors should discuss this with an editor to find an appropriate solution. In some cases derived data (earthquake catalogs, inferred velocity models, simulation output) do not fall under the same restrictions and can be shared in accordance with Seismica policies. When important data cannot be made available, a statement should be included in the manuscript explaining why the data have not been made available.

When data falls under an embargo, the data availability statement should indicate when the embargo expires. Many data archiving services (like Zenodo and Figshare) offer various embargo options. In this way, the authors can prepare their datasets as they usually would and let the archiving service handle the embargo expiration.

Data availability for peer review. To verify the claims made in a study, reviewers should have access to any data, codes, and other materials and be able to properly review them. While an in-depth review of these additional materials is not required, we ask reviewers to verify that the data policies set out in this section are met (see Reviewer Guidelines on peer review). To facilitate this, authors are expected to prepare their data/code repositories prior to submission. The authors can choose to make these repositories publicly available upon submission, or to provide a private link to be used for peer-review. As any other materials and information, this private link and the contents of the repository fall under the reviewer confidentiality agreements, and will not be shared outside of the peer-review process.

4. Corrections, name changes, retractions, commentaries, or misconduct

Corrections. An Author Correction may be submitted and published to correct any error(s) made in the original published article that affects its scientific accuracy and/or reproducibility or the publication record/metadata. Publication of an Author Correction may be requested by the original author(s) or solicited by a handling editor. In the case that corrections are requested by the author(s), a handling editor will be assigned who will assess the nature of the request and whether the publication of an Author Correction is warranted. If the nature of the correction results in significant changes to the conclusions, interpretations, or integrity of the original paper, the editor may choose instead to retract the paper, whilst reserving the potential to invite the author(s) to resubmit for additional peer review.

Name Change Policy. Seismica authors may change their name on a manuscript under consideration or previously published, by contacting Seismica to request the change. We can change the names on the versions of record on Seismica's website (xml and pdf versions) and in the article metadata. In case of name changes, the DOI for the article will not be changed. The citation lists of other articles which cite the article with the author name change will not be changed. The requesting author may choose whether the name change is done silently or with a posted correction highlighting the change.

Retractions. Retraction is typically reserved for cases when these issues rise to the level of casting significant doubt on, or resulting in fundamental changes to, the central conclusions and interpretations of a peer-reviewed publication. Violation of publication or research ethics may also result in a study's retraction, including conflicts of interest that were not disclosed at the time of review. For a more detailed discussion of issues that may lead to retraction, please refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics report, which Seismica will follow. In the case of retraction, the original article will be clearly marked as retracted on the article landing page and watermarked in the associated PDF. A detailed justification for the retraction will also be included along with a timeline of all decisions made on the article. Retraction statements will typically include a statement of assent or dissent from the authors. In the event that the issues leading to a publication's retraction are determined by the editorial board to have resulted from good faith errors on the part of the author(s), an invitation to submit a revised version of the work for additional peer review may be extended. Should that revised version eventually be accepted for publication, it will be treated as a separate entity from the original (e.g., with a new DOI), although the two versions will remain linked. If retraction is due to the result of unethical action (including but not limited to plagiarism, failure to notify coauthors, fabrication of data, omission of data, etc), then an invitation to submit a revised version will not be extended.

Commentaries. Formal post-publication Comments on published papers from author(s) not involved in the original study can involve challenges, clarifications, or, in some cases, an attempt at replication of the published work. After successful peer review, these comments may be published online, usually alongside a Reply from the original authors. Suggested length limits for comments and replies are 3,000 words and 3 figures each. There is no specific time frame limiting the submission of comments. Those interested in publishing a comment related to an article in Seismica should contact the editorial board, who will then assess the relevance and timeliness of the anticipated comment. Comments are always published at the discretion of the editorial board. After a comment has been peer reviewed and approved by the editors for publication, the original authors of the publication will be invited to submit a reply. Ideally, the comment and subsequent reply will be published simultaneously following peer review, and to facilitate this we place a deadline for submission of the reply at 3 months after the authors of the original publication receive the comment and an invitation to construct a reply. If this deadline is not met, then the comment will be published in isolation. If the author(s) or the original article do not meet this deadline, they may still construct a reply at any point after publication of the prompting comment.

Expression of Concern and Allegations of Misconduct. An Editorial Expression of Concern is a statement from the editors alerting readers to serious concerns affecting the integrity of the published paper. Such expressions indicate that either the editors or the original author(s) have potentially identified a major issue with the published paper and are actively working to address the problem. The Expression of Concern will remain publicly visible until one of three conditions is met: (1) the editors become satisfied that the issue identified does not require any additional action and the paper may remain published in its current state; (2) a suitable Author Correction is produced and published alongside the original paper; or (3) the issue identified as a concern is deemed sufficiently critical that the central conclusions and/or interpretations of the publication are impacted, at which point the publication may be retracted. The purpose of the editorial expression of concern is to minimize potential damages whilst a publication is being investigated by the editorial board.

Any author, reviewer, editor or other party involved in the submission and review process who wishes to report allegations of misconduct, whether conducted in the course of research or manuscript preparation, or inappropriate actions by an author, reviewer, editor, or other Seismica Board member, are encouraged to directly contact members of the Seismica Executive or send a message to info@seismica.org.

5. Confidentiality

Editors, authors, and reviewers must keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts. If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is eventually published, correspondence with the journal, referees' reports, and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed, or otherwise publicized without prior written consent.

6. Originality

Material submitted to Seismica must be original and not published or concurrently submitted for publication elsewhere in any language. Plagiarism or duplicate submission will result in the immediate rejection of any manuscript, or, if detected post-publication, in retraction.

Plagiarism is unacknowledged copying, or an attempt to misattribute original authorship, whether of ideas, text, data or figures. Plagiarism applies to both published and unpublished ideas, and electronic (e.g. internet publications, e-mail) as well as print versions of material. Plagiarism applies to material originated by other researchers, or the authors' own (self-plagiarism).

Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the source of the quotation cited. Due care must be taken to ensure appropriate attribution and citation when paraphrasing and summarizing the work of others. Ideas received in the form of personal communications and comments from reviewers, colleagues, or peers, should be acknowledged. Copyrighted material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement, and the author must provide documentation of permission for the material to be re-published.

Self-plagiarism, which includes text recycling, occurs when sections of the same text, or figures, appear in more than one of an author's own publications. However, we understand that text or figure recycling may be unavoidable for some specific portions of a manuscript, for instance in the background, methodological or analytical descriptions. Re-use of text or figure is accepted if legitimate, of minor amount, reported transparently and properly attributed, and in compliance with any copyright policy. The re-use of data without clear scientific justification and transparency will be considered as duplicate or redundant publication.

Duplicate or redundant submission or publication occurs when authors submit or publish the same intellectual material more than once. Publication of an identical paper in multiple journals, or publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published, without clear scientific justification and transparent reference to the previous publication, will be considered as author misconduct.

Seismica editors will assume that the journal has full permission to publish every part of the submitted material, including illustrations; authors have the responsibility to secure permission to include any reproduced material subject to copyright, and will affirm this permission during submission.

We acknowledge the valuable role that AI tools, including Large Language Models (LLMs) and LLM agents, can make valid contributions to the research and writing process. Therefore, we permit the utilization of these AI tools to enhance the quality of submissions. However, we emphasize that the responsibility for the content of the manuscript lies solely with the authors; since AI tools cannot assume responsibility for the content they produce, they cannot be granted co-authorship status. We ask the authors to always verify any results coming out of any interactions with AI. Moreover, the use of such tools should be explicitly mentioned in the manuscript: if AI significantly contributed to the scientific content (e.g., writing code, symbolic mathematics, etc.) it should be included in the Methods section. If it was used for writing assistance, it suffices to include a statement in the acknowledgements ("We used [AI tool name + version] to assist in drafting the manuscript").

7. Appeals

The editorial process shall be managed to the best of the Editors' abilities with integrity, clarity, respect, and transparency. However, disagreements and complaints regarding editorial decisions and process may sometimes arise. Appeals of any editorial decisions should be written as a detailed and respectful covering letter which should be emailed in pdf format to appeals@seismica.org. A team of two Board members (typically an Executive Editor and one other) will then assume the case and may take one of two possible actions: (1) render a decision on the appeal in the event that they have sufficient disciplinary expertise to appropriately assess the article and the arguments being made by the author(s); or (2) pass the appeal up to the Cross-Journals Appeals Committee (consisting of two representatives from each participating journal). This committee (or a subset if any members are in conflict of interest with any author, reviewer or editor involved in the submission to which the appeal applies) will consider the appeal and inform the corresponding author. The goal of this thorough approach is to provide an assessment of author appeals/complaints in a neutral environment and to eventually provide the author(s) with closure and constructive feedback. Thus, the original handling editor is not involved in the appeals process. The original handling editor will learn the results of the appeals process. All decisions rendered by the Cross-Journal Appeals Committee for a particular manuscript are final. Further appeals will not be considered.

As of March 2023, Appeals to Seismica will be received by Seismica's Community Editor (Christie Rowe), Mathilde Radiguet, and Åke Fagereng. If a conflict of interest arises with one of these editors are encouraged to write to info@seismica.org and request an alternative appeal committee.

1. Publication types and their sections

Seismica manuscripts should contain no more than 10,000 words and 10 display items (i.e., figures, tables) in the main text. Seismica publishes three types of manuscripts:

Research articles, which present advances in scientific knowledge or understanding. These are typically from 3,000 to 10,000 words in length (excluding references and figure captions) and up to 10 figures, and can address any aspect of seismology and earthquake science within the journal's scope (see above). Authors who have long articles of over 10,000 words that cannot be shortened should contact the Executive Editor for Production ahead of submission to see if this can be accommodated.

FastReports: Fast Reports are high quality, time-sensitive manuscripts (typically submitted within several weeks following an event), and short (typically ~3000 words, with 2-3 display items). An earthquake report may include: original observations and ground motion recordings, source inversions, felt reports and impacts on the built environment, or secondary hazard assessments (e.g., tsunami, landslides). However, submissions offering little more than information routinely provided by earthquake monitoring agencies (e.g. USGS, Geoscope, EMSC) will not be considered. To be accepted for Seismica, the Fast Report must be brief, but the research must be neither overstated nor overly summarized; it must include multiple analyses of the event in question, must be scientifically sound, and must provide new information. Fast Reports also welcomes articles that could be perceived critical and urgent for science strategy, policies or standards (e.g., building codes). Fast Reports go through an accelerated review process managed by a dedicated team of editors and one additional expert review, and aim to publish about 30 days after submission. Manuscripts which are too long (without prior permission of the editor), out of scope, or for which accelerated review is not adequately justified will be rejected with an invitation to submit in another article type. Fast Reports must conform to Seismica's guidelines for authorship, conflict of interest, and code and data availability. Authors are strongly encouraged to submit in Seismica's LaTeX template to reduce delays in revisions and typesetting. If "major revisions" are required prior to acceptance, the manuscript may be transferred out of "Fast Reports" to another article type. In order to facilitate rapid publication, authors are expected to respond to emails from the Seismica team quickly during the review/revision period and preparation for publication. Supplementary material may be included (<1000 words and <10 display items).

Reports, which contribute peer-reviewed useful information to the public sphere but may not represent a substantive advance in scientific understanding in themselves. Reports include:

• Null results / failed experiments: While null results are often ignored in the scientific literature, they can be useful in advancing science, for instance through highlighting difficulties in reproducing published results or by documenting the circumstances in which particular methods or approaches may be unsuccessful. Due to the lack of editorial interest and the difficulty in defining the value of negative results, very few journals offer the possibility for such publications. Seismica is willing to consider publications of null results where they are illuminating or instructive in the context of previous published studies. Null-result manuscripts should include sections on: the background to the study, methods, details of the null results, discussion of the null results in the context of previous work, and scientific and/or technical insights drawn from the null results. This last element is essential for a good null-result report - the insights presented there should serve as a 'take-home message' for other researchers in that field.

• Software Reports: The goals of Software Reports in Seismica are to document new codes, to facilitate community use of them, and to ensure reproducibility of their outputs. Software Reports should include a main paper, plus a user manual and source code that should be uploaded to a public domain repository. The main paper should describe the scientific context, the methods employed, and detail aspects such as test case simulations, model verification, evaluation and performance. Including the examples and test cases mentioned in the main paper as tutorials within the repository is strongly recommended. All code repositories must be privately accessible by the editors and reviewers upon submission, publicly accessible upon acceptance, and the codes included are subject to peer review. See Availability of data, materials, and code for more information.

• Data-based Reports (e.g., Large Community dataset initiatives, Instrument Deployments, and Field Campaigns): These submissions allow seismological and other field data collection (e.g., logging a paleoseismic trench or collecting photogrammetric data) to be documented via a citable and peer-reviewed reference that describes the data collected, the experiment design, and relevant collaborators. Ideally these manuscripts should be submitted as soon as possible - i.e., after the instruments and/or data are recovered, and initial data quality assurance (e.g., noise analysis) is completed. Datasets must be publicly available or be made available within two years via a public domain data repository such as the IRIS Data Management Center or Zenodo. If the data are embargoed, then the end date of the embargo and the repository for the data must be stated in the article. Reports are constructed given a specific structure: Scientific background and motivation; Description of the instrument deployment or field experiment (including technical details of the instrumentation, such as instrument response, make and model, etc.); Description of obtained data (including repository details), Preliminary observations and interpretations. For rapid, temporary deployments or experiments, the Editorial process will follow that of Fast Reports.

Opinion articles and reviews, which are invited papers about a scientific idea, controversial topics and/or innovative concepts. Authors may contact the Editorial Board with ideas of subjects for editorial articles.

Special Issues may include specific criteria for inclusion of different article types, consult the main page for any open Special Issue for details.

Commentaries - see " Corrections, name changes, retractions, and commentaries or allegations of misconduct Section" for information about submitting a Commentary.

All article types will be published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY 4.0) license by default, or specific licenses required by authors' employers or requested by authors.

The following sections are required as part of each submitted manuscript:

• Abstract (in English), maximum 200 words, no references included.

• Author contributions statement, using only the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). The Seismica article templates include a section for a CRediT statement. Please follow policies on authorship.

• A Data and Code Availability Statement, detailing where all data and codes used in the study can be accessed. Statements along the lines of "please contact the authors for data access" are not acceptable for data which could be distributed digitally. If the data are not available, the data availability statement should explain why. Please see policies on availability of data, materials, and codes for more details. Questions about data and code sharing may be asked in advance of submission or posed in the Comments to the Editor.

• A list of all references cited in the study including DOIs if available. LaTeX submissions should use our bibtex style file included in the Seismica templates; other submissions should use APA reference style, including the full author list for each entry. Seismica strongly suggests that authors consider ensuring that their citations are inclusive and conscientious. Citation Diversity Statements are not required, but efforts should be made to cite widely, such as citing non-English works, non-academic, policy documents.

The following sections may be included, but are not required:

• Authors are encouraged to include, in addition to the English version of the abstract, up to two additional language translations of the abstract to be included in the typeset paper, also with a maximum of 200 words each. Please note that the additional-language abstract may undergo a technical review (at the discretion of the Handling Editor). Seismica does not guarantee reviews of additional language abstracts, so it is the responsibility of the authors to ensure correct translation.

• To make your research accessible for everyone, Seismica encourages the inclusion of a non-technical summary with the initial manuscript, explaining the essential methods and results of your article so that someone unfamiliar with your field of research can understand. The target audience may include journalists, government staff, other researchers, people involved in civil protection and disaster management, and the public in general. Your non-technical summary should be one or two paragraphs (about 200 words total), covering the following main points:

• What is the current issue or problem that your research addresses, and why are you researching it? Try to consider why this topic is vital to the larger community.

• Without excessive use of jargon, how did you go about collecting and analyzing the data and results?

• What are the main conclusions of your study? Ultimately, what will the impact of your research be? What societal benefits may be realized?

• Supplementary material. Supplemental pdf files containing text and figures should be uploaded into the journal submission system. All other supplementary files (e.g., data tables - in, e.g., .csv format) should be uploaded to a relevant separate repository. Seismica recommends tagging the Seismica community repository in Zenodo.

• Appendices. Your article may include appendices if necessary, but please think carefully about how the information you want to put in an appendix relates to the rest of your paper. If it is necessary for understanding the work, should it be incorporated into the main text instead? If it is not essential to understand the work but should be included for completeness, could it be supplementary material instead? Note that supplementary material is included in the review process but is not typeset, which reduces the burden on our copy/layout team.

2. Preprints, self-archiving, and conference proceedings

Seismica considers for publication manuscripts that have been hosted elsewhere as preprints. A preprint is an author's original version of a research manuscript prior to formal peer review at a journal, which is deposited on a public server. Seismica encourages posting of preprints on any channel of the authors' choice, including preprint servers, authors' personal or institutional websites.

Preprints may be posted and shared at any time during the peer-review process. However, authors should disclose details of preprint posting, including DOI and licensing terms, upon submission of the manuscript (via the 'Comments to the Editor' box in the submission system) or at any other point during consideration at Seismica (by email or using the 'Discussion' functionality of the manuscript system, to the handling editor if post-submission).

Authors may choose any license of their choice for the preprint, but we recommend a Creative Commons CC-BY license. Before selecting a license, consult the terms of author employment or any grant related to the publication, as some programs enforce specific licenses for preprints.

Once the manuscript is published, the author's responsibility is to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. This will ensure that citations of the preprint and published article are linked.

Seismica also permits the archiving of postprints - accepted manuscripts, which include modifications based on referees' suggestions before copyediting and proof correction, or final published and copy-edited manuscripts - on any channel of the authors' choice. If uploading an accepted manuscript, once the manuscript is published, the authors should update the archived accepted version with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website.

Seismica considers submissions containing material that has been published in a conference proceedings paper or submitted to the authors' funders, university or employer as a research activity report or thesis. However, the submission should provide a substantial extension of results, methodology, analysis, conclusions and/or implications over the previously published work; the final decision on what constitutes a substantial extension is made by the handling editors. Authors are invited to contact the Editorial team for consultation prior to submission (info@seismica.org).

Authors must provide details of the previous work with their submission, including relevant citations in the submitted manuscript. Authors must obtain all necessary permissions to reuse previously published material and attribute it appropriately.

3. Manuscript preparation

The following section outlines the baseline requirements for submitting a manuscript to Seismica, for both formatting and ethical authorship.

Formatting for submission: For initial submission, authors should submit a PDF file containing the manuscript and figures, and a separate PDF for any Supplementary Materials. Minimum formatting requirements for initial submission of a manuscript are:

• PDF document(s) for article and any supplemental materials

• Line numbers

• Double spacing

• Font size 12 or larger

• Figures included in text at the appropriate points

• Corresponding author ORCID provided in the text (contributing authors are also encouraged to provide ORCIDs)

We strongly encourage authors to use one of the Seismica templates (docx, odt, or tex) for initial submission, but this is required only for accepted manuscripts to be sent to typesetting and copy editing. Adherence to the template reduces Seismica's volunteer editor time commitments by several hours for each manuscript and will be strictly enforced. Seismica's style guide provides some guidance on preferred formats for dates and times, units, and abbreviations. Please follow these guidelines to the best of your ability. See Post-acceptance for more details.

Authors must run a complete spelling and grammatical check before submission (e.g., using (free) online tools such as Grammarly). Seismica has no preference for British vs American spellings, as long as manuscripts are self-consistent throughout. If the level of writing in a submission is such that it cannot be understood by the editor, then the editor at their discretion may return to the authors for correction before the manuscript is sent out for peer review.

Figures and tables: Figures should be sized so that their text is readable at either full or half A4 page width (i.e., 180 or 86 mm width). The maximum figure height is 200 mm. Authors should provide figures at a minimum of 300 dpi resolution. Figures with multiple parts must be combined in a single file that conforms to the figure size limits. Since Seismica is relying on volunteers from the community to typeset articles, any table that is included in Supplementary Material instead of in the main text will be greatly appreciated; if tables are included in the main text, production of an accepted article will take longer. However, tables can also be created in Word's table environment and embedded in the manuscript or uploaded as a separate document (e.g., .xls file). Figures do not need to be uploaded as separate, publication-ready files until the manuscript has been accepted. Color palettes used in figures should be perceptually-uniform when possible and color-vision-deficiency (CVD) friendly (see Crameri et al., 2020, Nat. Comms. for further details over these issues). Revisions may be requested to figures based on choice of colormaps. Seismica recommends using the perceptually uniform and CVD-friendly Scientific Colour Maps package .

Data and code archiving: Authors should archive data and code in public repositories. Physical samples should be adequately cataloged with curation to insure access for the long-term. Where the study has used data from a seismic network, the full FDSN citation should be given if it exists. Examples of open-access, DOI citable repositories for data and code include Figshare, Zenodo, Dryad, GFZ Data Services, and the ISC Dataset Repository. Personal websites and code repositories like GitHub do not meet the standards for long-term, DOI citable archiving; this may cause problems when authors make changes to the repository that are not documented in the publication. Fortunately, it is easy to archive a GitHub repository in Zenodo for a DOI-citable version.

Code should include comprehensive documentation, and a license specifying how it may be used or reused by others. See section 3.3 Availability of data, materials, and codes for more detail.

4. Manuscript submission

The corresponding author must register at Seismica.org to create an account. Prior to initiating submission, authors should select the appropriate article type (See section 4.1 for article type descriptions).

Authors should suggest recommended reviewers in the relevant subject area, and support Seismica's goal of creating a diverse reviewer pool whenever possible. For example, where a submission is focused on a specific geographical area, we ask that the authors suggest at least one reviewer based in that region. This ensures a wider diversity of reviewers and increases the impact of the scientific work. Authors are encouraged to include early career researchers, women and members of other underrepresented groups in their discipline in their list of suggested reviewers. Authors should not recommend reviewers with a known conflict of interest. Reviewer suggestions should be made through the 'Comments to the Editor' box in the submission system.

Licensing and copyright considerations. Articles accepted to Seismica are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license with copyright retained by authors by default. If you anticipate needing a different license to comply with regulations or job requirements (e.g., as government employees), please note this during submission in the Comments to Editor box. An example which relates to US Geological Survey employees is provided here.

Suggesting potential reviewers. The authors should suggest potential peer reviewers in the Comments to Editor box in the online submission form (see the Peer Review section below for more details). Authors should suggest recommended reviewers in the relevant subject area. Where a submission focuses on a specific geographical location, we recommend that the authors offer at least one reviewer based in that region (assuming that the reviewer has a reasonable degree of expertise in the subject area). This effort ensures a broader diversity of reviewers and increases the impact of the scientific work. Authors are invited to list reviewers who should not be contacted due to conflicts of interest, or other concerns. Authors can help the journal improve the diversity of Seismica's reviewer pool by including women, early career scientists, and members of other underrepresented groups in their lists of suggested reviewers.

Submitting a manuscript for double-anonymous review.

Research has shown that double-anonymous review may decrease reviewer bias which preferentially impacts authors from under-represented groups and early career authors. However, some work has suggested that reviewers may be biased against authors due to their selection of double-anonymous review mode. Seismica's authors and reviewers are asked to be aware of this potential for bias and consider selecting double-anonymous review as a means to familiarize the research community with the potential positive benefits of this review mode. At the author's request, manuscripts can instead be subjected to anonymous (i.e., double-anonymous) peer review (see Submission and formatting checklist for details). Moreover, the reviewers can decide whether or not to reveal their identity in their review.).

Authors may request double-anonymous review in the "Comments to the Editor" during submission. Note that remaining completely anonymous may not be possible since authors may be publicly linked to datasets they collected or may have previously presented preliminary work at conferences with published abstracts. For double-anonymous review, it is the authors' responsibility to anonymize their submitted manuscript file to the best of their ability; identifying data will be collected during manuscript submission but will not be passed on to reviewers with the manuscript file. The submitted manuscript PDF should not include author names and affiliations, an author contributions statement, identifiable details within a data and code availability statement, or acknowledgements. However, a statement on data/code availability should be included in a cover letter or Comments to the Editor. Identifying information may be used by the editors to confirm that the work is in compliance with Seismica's policies on open data, but will not be shared with reviewers. If the article is accepted, author names and affiliations, author contributions, a complete data and code availability statement, and acknowledgements are required in the post-acceptance formatted files submitted for typesetting. If authors choose to use the Seismica LaTeX submission template, it has an "anonymous" option which will produce a pdf without author names, affiliations, and contributions.

5. Editorial handling and Peer review

To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only papers that seem likely to meet our editorial criteria will be sent for formal review. Papers may be judged by the handling editor(s) (after consulting with the Production Editor and one additional handling editor) to be rejected promptly without external review for any of the following reasons:

• of insufficient interest;

• outside the scope of the journal (see Scope),

• not original (see Originality);

• written with grammatical or other errors sufficiently severe as to prevent meaningful scientific review;

• non-compliance with data requirements;

• or otherwise inappropriate.

If a paper is rejected without external review as per the reasons above, it is Seismica's policy to provide clear reasons for this decision and constructive guidance on whether additional modifications could potentially improve the paper to the expected standard of a submitted manuscript. Guidance may also be given on whether the manuscript may be re-submitted as, or directly changed to, a different publication type (see Publication types).

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to 2 reviewers, although additional reviewers may be sought if found necessary by the handling editor(s) (for example, if two review reports strongly disagree). For Fast Reports, one external reviewer (along with the editor's evaluation) may be sufficient.

Editorial decisions will not involve counting votes or numerical rank assessments. Instead, editors will evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors.

Handling editors may return documents to reviewers or authors before sharing further, if the review or response requires moderation in language, tone, or similar. Seismica does not tolerate inappropriate language in reviews or author responses. Please see Seismica's Code of Conduct (https://seismica.library.mcgill.ca/code-of-conduct) for more details.

Decisions available to handling editors are 'accept submission', 'request revisions', or 'decline' submission. There are no strict timelines enforced on authors for revision. In the case of rejection, guidance will be given on possible actions for the authors, but it is unlikely that the manuscript, without a substantial rework, will become suitable for Seismica (if it is, 'request revisions' should be used).

Although strict timelines are not applied to revisions, if a paper has been awaiting revision for 6 months, authors should communicate with their handling editor to give updates on the revision process. If no updates have been communicated for >6 months, Seismica handling editors will ultimately contact authors. Without any timely response, editors may remove the submission from the system (via a formal rejection). Manuscripts can potentially be resubmitted at a later date.

After the first round of review, handling editors may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where reviewers disagree with each other or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. Upon reading the revised manuscript and rebuttal document, the handling editor will then decide whether a further round of external review is needed In the case of a revised manuscript being sent for further external review, it may be sent to either the previous and/or new reviewers.

All reviewer reports/editorial decisions should be shared amongst all reviewers of a manuscript once a decision has been sent to authors. Reviewers should also be thanked for their time.

Seismica does not release referees' identities to authors, other reviewers, or in the published peer review reports on the Seismica website, unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors.

Seismica offers a double anonymous peer review option. Authors who choose this option at submission will be given the same respectful consideration and will remain anonymous to the referees throughout the consideration process. The authors are responsible for anonymizing their manuscript accordingly (see the Submission and formatting checklist). This peer review mode can be chosen by notifying the Handling Editor in the 'Comments to the Editor' box of the submission system.

Seismica uses a transparent peer-review system, where we publish the full editorial decisions, reviewer comments to the authors, and author rebuttal letters. Referees will be anonymous if the referees have not confirmed they would like to be identified to the authors.

With the exception of Fast Reports, reviewers will be asked to return reviews in 4 weeks. The journal aims to return first decision in 8 weeks, but will not rush decisions at the expense of scientific process (e.g. giving reviewers more time in case of delays, requiring a third review if appropriate, or calling in a new reviewer in the case of non-response from a previously agreed reviewer). Fast Reports ask for reviews in 2 weeks and aim for a first decision in 4 weeks. There may be some delays in handling submissions during certain holiday seasons (for example during late December to early January).

Seismica aims to maintain communication between editors and authors throughout the publication process. This includes progress updates, explanation of any delays, and explanation and guidance around all decisions made about the paper. Editors aim to return a first decision within eight weeks after submission.

For details on the peer review process for Fast Reports, please see Seismica's policies on Publication Types.

Authors need to provide the following files for a revised manuscript to be assessed by the handling editor:

• A detailed 'response-to-reviewers' document that states each separate point raised by each reviewer and the editor, followed by the authors' response, and a clear statement of the associated changes made to the manuscript where they are needed. Authors should respond to reviewer comments by making edits to the manuscript, and use the response letter to guide the editor to the changes or explain the rationale for a response to reviewer comments. Avoid duplication as much as possible to keep the response letter more streamlined (for example, by cross-reference similar comments by different reviewers).

• A version of the revised manuscript clearly showing the in-line changes made to the manuscript. Ideally, deleted/edited text should be signified by strikethrough presentation, with new text in a different color.

• A cleaned-up version of the revised manuscript (showing no comments, strikethroughs, or tracked changes).

Seismica will normally expect a revised version of the manuscript, together with a rebuttal letter, to be submitted within 6 months of receiving the peer review comments. Authors should ensure that revisions to manuscripts are more than sufficient to answer the level of recommended changes to prevent multiple rounds of review/reviewer fatigue. The response letter should fully represent changes made to the manuscript. The response letter should not be terse or vague.

Authors should ensure that their response is respectful. Any personal or abusive attacks are unacceptable and will be escalated to an independent appeals committee and will be grounds for outright rejection by the editor. Politely pointing out that the reviewer is mistaken is, of course, okay. Please consult Seismica's Code of Conduct for more guidance.

Authors should be cautious of any implicitly biasing and racially/gender-specific coded language. To avoid misaddressing the reviewers and editors, we strongly recommend writing in a passive, gender-neutral style (e.g. "the reviewer says..." rather than "he/she says"), especially if pronouns have not been provided.

Peer review reports and rebuttal letters will be published online alongside the published paper if the manuscript is accepted. Review reports will not include reviewers' names unless the reviewers chose to sign their review reports. If a manuscript is rejected, the process remains confidential. Reviewers' reports and authors' answers are not published.

6. Post-acceptance

Once an article has been accepted, Seismica will only publish the typeset, formatted version of the paper - not the pre-typeset postprint. We recommend that authors wishing to share unformatted accepted post-prints instead use repositories such as EarthArXiv. The authors are free (and encouraged) to share the typeset version of record on platforms like ResearchGate, institutional repositories, and personal websites. After acceptance, the corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all content in the manuscript, including co-authors' names, addresses, and affiliations.

Following acceptance, authors are requested to upload the manuscript using the Seismica template in Microsoft Word, OpenOffice or LaTeX format (found on the Templates page) with figures included in the text, along with separate publication-ready figures in.png or.pdf format at a minimum of 300 dpi resolution. Any Supplemental Material should remain a separate file or files, not part of the article text, and does not need to be formatted using a template. Seismica will not typeset supplemental material. Manuscripts that do not meet Seismica submission guidelines will be sent back to authors, which will delay the publication.

Seismica provides templates in docx, odt, and tex formats for authors' convenience, but please note that a submission in docx or odt format will likely take several extra days in production while volunteers of the Standards & Copyediting Team convert the file into tex. Including tables in a docx or odt file will further delay production. Authors who want their article processed more rapidly are advised to use the tex template.

Once a manuscript is accepted and has been formatted in line with Seismica guidelines, Handling Editors will be involved in the Production workflow, and are expected to communicate with the corresponding Author, the Copy and Layout Editor, and members from the Media & Branding team.

The main steps of the Production workflow are:

1. Handling Editor sends the manuscript to Copyediting/Production stage, and assigns one or both of the Standards & Copy Editing (SCE) chairs. The SCE chairs will assign the Copy and Layout Editor.

2. Handling Editor assigns two members of the Media & Branding team and specifies if the paper is potentially newsworthy and may require a press release. Media & Branding team contacts authors to prepare social media posts and press release if appropriate. Authors are encouraged to contact their institutional press/media offices for coordination.

3. Handling Editor uploads one PDF file for Review Reports (and Replies).

4. Copy and Layout Editor produces proofs and exchanges with the corresponding Author until proofs are approved. Then, the Copy and Layout Editor notifies the Handling Editor that proofs are finalized, and they are moving on to create the galleys.

5. Handling Editor reports submitted and accepted dates to Copy and Layout Editor. Handling Editor defines default target publication date: 7 working days after proof approval for articles, 3 working days for fast reports. Handling Editors checks with Copy and Layout Editor if the default target publication date can be met, or if it can be advanced for a fast report.

6. Media & Branding Team contacts Author for social media posts to promote the paper, using the target publication date as the announcement date by default.

7. Copy and Layout Editor uploads final galleys, any supplementary materials provided by the authors.

8. Handling Editor does final pre-publication checks (see next section of these guidelines).

9. On the publication date, Handling Editor publishes the manuscript.

1. Responding to a peer review request

When requested to review a manuscript, we ask you to consider three things:

• You have the expertise and experience that is needed to evaluate the manuscript thoughtfully. It may be best to pass if you feel that you are not qualified to comment on the methodological or statistical techniques used in the manuscript or the overall contribution to the field.

• You have the ability to provide a fair and unbiased review. In the case of a conflict of interest with the manuscript or its authors (please see Seismica's Competing Interests policy for more details), or of a close personal/working relationship with the authors, the Handling Editor should be informed via email or via the review invitation system. Please contact the Editor if you are unsure of whether you have a Competing Interest.

• You have sufficient time to dedicate to the review. If you feel that you cannot complete a peer review in the requested time (default expectation is within 4 weeks for all submissions to Seismica, excluding Fast Reports), please inform the Handling Editor as soon as possible so that another reviewer can be found promptly.

If you cannot satisfy the above criteria, and cannot complete the peer review, then please inform the Handling Editor as soon as possible so that another reviewer can be found promptly. Seismica will be very grateful if you can suggest other reviewers.

As a default, potential reviewers are given two weeks to respond to peer-review invitations.

2. Ensuring ethical and respectful peer review

By agreeing to carry out a peer review, you agree to abide by Seismica's Code of Conduct and you agree to have your review report (signed or unsigned) published alongside the article if it is accepted for publication.

Reviewers should ensure that all unpublished data, information, interpretation and discussion in a submitted article (which hasn't been published in a preprint repository) remain confidential (See the policies on confidentiality) and may not use reported work in unpublished, submitted articles for their research. Thus, reviewers may not paste text from submitted manuscripts into ChatGPT or similar AI language models when composing reviews.

Reviewers should only suggest that authors include citations to their own (or their associates') work where this adds significant value to the scientific aspects of the paper. Authors and Editors can decide not to include these citations if they are deemed irrelevant or redundant.

Once a review is complete, reviewers should not retain or copy the submitted manuscript in any form.

Reviewers may not use information obtained during the peer review process for their own or any other person's or organization's advantage or disadvantage, or to discredit others.

The same requirements listed in Author Guidelines on responding to reviewers and editors apply to reviewer reports. See the Guidelines for Handling Editors for possible editorial responses to inappropriate, biased, or libelous language in reviews.

3. Preparation of reviewer report

Seismica does not use a structured review form. The following sections provide some guidance on information to include and questions to consider in writing your review, which can be uploaded to the journal website as a PDF or copy-pasted into a text box when you are ready to submit it. Any format is fine as long as reviews are clear and respectful. Reviewers may also upload marked up copies of the manuscript file (remember to strip any personal identification from the file before uploading it if you are not signing your review)

Reviewers should inform the handling Editor if a manuscript contains or appears to contain plagiarism or falsified or manipulated data, or if there are any strong similarities between the submitted manuscript and another either published or under consideration by a different journal. If relevant, please provide the editor a companion or similar paper for comparison.

Clearly explain and support your judgements so that editors and authors may understand the basis of your comments and provide reference to additional published works, where appropriate.

Authors should explain the data sources and codes used to generate the results. Reviewers should verify that these are accessible, sufficiently well documented, and self-contained. Anonymized submissions may withhold access to data and codes that might inadvertently reveal the identity of the authors. In this case, the handling Editor will verify that codes and data are accessible.

Since Seismica relies on volunteer copy editors from the research community, any typos or grammatical issues that the reviewers can flag will be greatly appreciated. However, these issues should not form the main objectives of the peer review reporting. Any technical comments/suggestions can be appended during typesetting.

With the exception of fast reports, reviewers will be asked to return reviews in 4 weeks. The journal aims to return the first decision in 8 weeks, but will not rush decisions at the expense of the scientific process (e.g. giving reviewers more time in case of delays, requiring a third review if appropriate, or calling in a new reviewer in the case of non-response from a previously agreed reviewer). Fast reports ask for reviews in 2 weeks and aim for the first decision in 4 weeks. It is the responsibility of reviewers to contact the handling editor with any anticipated delays. Don't neglect to communicate holiday-related absences as these are internationally variable and may not be obvious to other colleagues at Seismica. If the manuscript is accepted, then peer review reports (anonymous if the review is not signed) and rebuttal letters will be published online, alongside the published paper.

Questions to consider when reviewing

Consider addressing the following questions in your review text:

• Is the paper of value and interest to a significant portion of the potential readers of Seismica?

• Is the study timely and of current interest?

• Is the manuscript clear and easy to follow?

• Is the manuscript's title adequate and accurate?

• Is the abstract adequate?

• Are the methods appropriate and described in sufficient detail to be transparent and reproducible?

• Are the conclusions adequate and supported by the data?

• Is the paper unnecessarily long? Does it include too many materials that can be found in other sources?

• Is the paper significantly different to those already published by this author(s) or any other paper in this field of study?

• If the study disagrees significantly with the current academic consensus, is there a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?

• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding, or are they superfluous?

4. Making a recommendation

The table below lists criteria to consider in making a recommendation to accept, request revisions, or reject a manuscript. Note that reviewer recommendations are seen by the editors only, and they do not necessarily reflect the editor's final decision, and it is their discretion to make the final call.

Recommendation	Some examples of standard criteria to consider(non-exhaustive)
Rejection   (note that fixing some of these issues could allow a possible resubmission)	Key elements such as a title, list of authors and affiliations, main text, references, or figures and tables are missing. The study uses a discredited method. The manuscript contains plagiarized material. Submissions using the same method AND analysis AND theory AND data, AND giving the same results and conclusions from existing published results without quantitative comparison, should be rejected. Unsubstantiated pseudoscience or other work can either be (1) readily disproven (2) unreproducible. For example, accurately predicting future earthquakes in space and time. Not being able to read the general methods and results of the manuscript due to poor Scientific English, without any unnecessary language-based gatekeeping. The tables and figures are not clear enough to read. Out of the broad scope of Seismica (see Section 1.1). A clear hypothesis or motivation for the study hasn't been established. Non-compliance with Seismica's data policy
Return to author for revisions	The results and conclusions appear sound, but need minor additions or clarifications; or the manuscript makes unsubstantiated conclusions from the data/evidence presented but can still be fixed upon revision. Some key references are missing. Synthesis of previous work lacks breadth or understanding of the field. The motivation for the work is adequate with minor improvements. Interpretation is primarily based on previous work, not the paper's results. Lack of error analysis, flawed error analysis, or lack of information about assumptions The figures and tables are relevant but need some changes to improve their clarity. Some numerical errors.
Accept	The contribution is significant, exciting or innovative. The work is very well written. No changes to be made (apart from any minor technical corrections that can be made during the typesetting process). The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and address the central question(s) posed. The underlying theory is well understood and presented. No changes to the methods or analysis are needed. The manuscript is very well organized and has an exemplary logical flow. The work is not missing any key references No numerical errors.

5. Signing peer review reports

It is not compulsory, but we recommend that peer reviewers sign their reports to ensure open and constructive reviews, and to acknowledge the community-based philosophy of Seismica. If you sign your peer review report, then your name will appear on the published article and on the peer review report alongside the article, once it has been accepted.

1. Initial checks

Editors should do a thorough initial assessment of the manuscript before contacting reviewers. Editors should decide if the manuscript has been submitted in the most appropriate format (e.g., Research Article, Report, Fast Report). If the submission type needs to be changed, then the corresponding author should be informed. If no formatting changes are required, then the submission type can be changed within the Issue metadata section of OJS. Reviews and comments by editors should be documented and included along with other review reports, where required.

Editors may return a manuscript to authors for additional editing prior to sending the manuscript to reviewers. This may happen in case of grammatical or prose clarity issues, insufficient figure quality, or other factors that would prevent a robust peer review process.

Handling Editors should check that they are not in conflict with any authors or others involved with the study, or their institutions, and if any potential conflicts are identified, they should inform the Executive Editor (production) to transfer the manuscript to a different Handling Editor.

Once Editors decide to continue with the peer-review process, they should introduce themselves to the Corresponding Author so that the author knows who is handling their submission.

2. Ensuring an ethical and respectful editorial process

Editors should seek, acknowledge, discuss, and take action to eliminate implicit bias and foster broad, diverse representation, specifically when inviting authors and reviewers.

Handling Editors should treat any manuscripts they are dealing with, and the related process, as confidential (see the policies on confidentiality).

Handling Editors should not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person's or organization's advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

Handling Editors should ensure that reviews are suitable before passing them on to the authors. This includes checking for inappropriate language or anything that violates either the Reviewer Guidelines or Seismica's Code of Conduct. Any inappropriate content should be reported to the senior editorial team, who will then issue feedback and a warning to the reviewer.

3. Coordinating with reviewers

Handling Editors should ensure that all published reports of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers. Editors are expected to recruit reviewers representing a diverse range of backgrounds and should use a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers. Editors should ideally choose at least two reviewers to provide a report for regular articles, and at least one reviewer for fast reports (with a review by the editor themselves), but should not invite more concurrent reviewers than are needed at any one time. Editors should cease to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews.

Editors should provide clear advice and feedback to reviewers, where appropriate.

Editors should flag any case of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship with Seismica's Executive Editors.

All reviewer reports/editorial decisions should be shared amongst all reviewers of a manuscript once a decision has been sent to the authors.

By default, potential reviewers are given two weeks to respond to the review invitation, and four weeks to complete their review.

4. Managing the review process

Editors should deal with any papers assigned to them in a timely fashion so as to aim for an initial decision within two months. If this deadline is not met, editors should keep the corresponding author updated.

Handling Editors should send reviewers' comments to authors in their entirety except for special cases (such as offensive or libelous remarks, see below). Handling Editors should also provide written feedback to authors as regards any decision made, even if that decision apparently follows obviously from reviewers' comments, in which case one or two sentences summarizing the deciding factors from the reviewers' comments is appropriate.

Once a decision on a manuscript has been taken, Handling Editors should share the reports from all reviewers amongst reviewers and the editorial decision should be communicated back to reviewers to ensure an ongoing learning process for everyone dedicating their time. Editors may also wish to use that opportunity to provide any constructive feedback to the reviewer about their report.

If a review contains offensive or libelous remarks or other indications of potential bias, the Handling Editor has a few options, in consultation with the Production Editor: (1) they may decline to accept the review; (2) they may pass the review back to the reviewer with a request to edit the review to meet Seismica's community standards; (3) they may inform the reviewer that they are redacting specific text before sending the review to the authors; or (4) they may send the complete review to the authors with commentary.

Although strict timelines are not applied to revisions, if a paper has been awaiting revision for 6 months, the handling editor should get in touch with the authors to see whether they plan to submit a revision, or if the manuscript should be removed from the system.

5. Making a decision

Handling Editors' recommendation to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the peer reviews and their own view on the paper's importance, originality and clarity, the study's validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal. The types of decisions and criteria for these can be found in the Reviewer Guidelines on making a recommendation.

Editorial decisions should not be a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments. Instead, editors will evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors. Handling Editors should consider any Conflict of Interest statements when weighing reviewers' recommendations

Handling Editors should try to ensure that the efforts of reviewers are appropriately acknowledged (even if anonymous), in the published version of the paper.

Handling Editors may consult Seismica's Mentoring Team, the Production Editor or, with their permission, with another Handling Editor for input on editorial decisions. In such cases, all parties involved in a decision are held to the same confidentiality standards described above.

6. Post-acceptance checklist for Editors

Once a manuscript is accepted, Handling Editors should verify the uploaded version complies with the submission and formatting checklist, which is summarized below. If the accepted paper does not respect all of the points in the post-acceptance checklist, Handling Editors should ensure a corrected version is uploaded before sending it to the Production stage.

Post-acceptance checklist:

• Manuscript should be formatted with the Seismica template, either docx, odt or tex, and editable article files are provided (including a.bib file if the tex template is used)

• All author information is provided (orcid, corresponding author, affiliation, contribution) and is coherent with the information entered at submission

• Data & code availability and reproducibility statement should be provided

• All figures should be uploaded as separate files, ideally in png or pdf format

• Supplementary material should be uploaded as a separate file that will not be formatted. Supplementary material should not be included in the main paper.

• Most (>90%) references should contain DOI information

• Reviewers should appear in acknowledgements

Optionally, Handling Editors can highlight any grammatical or style issues and upload an additional annotated manuscript, or a list of corrections, for use by the Copy and Layout Editor.

7. Final pre-publication checklist

Once a manuscript is ready for publication, Handling Editors should effectuate final verifications before publishing.

Pre-publication checklist:

• Review Reports (and Replies) should be uploaded as galleys

• DOI in final PDF galley should be correct

• Contributors (names and affiliations) listed in the OJS publication tab should correspond to contributors listed in the PDF galley

• Authors (names and affiliations) listed in the OJS permissions and disclosure tab should correspond to contributors listed in the PDF galley

• Title and abstract detailed in the OJS metadata tab should match the title and abstract in PDF galley

• References should be listed in plain text in OJS references tab

• Check that the correct Section has been assigned (publication tab -> issue).