Rubric for Best Practice in Scientific Writing in our group

We aim to write rigorous and impactful papers. Our in-house thorough crafting of these papers is aimed to submit manuscripts that only returns with minor revisions.

After a first iteration on the paper, our group members have to use chatGPT 4o+ to self evaluate and improve on the publication with a group-edited set of rubric criteria.

0. To complete before sending to Marine for the first iteration

  • Type setting in Latex
    • Check that the journal template is well implemented, including the intro page
    • Make sure that all references are in the Latex style and that they appear correctly in the text: use \citet{} when the reference is used as a subject, and \citep{} when it is referred in ().
    • Make sure all figures have the correct caption (choose consistent type setting with bold for title), and refer to (a), (b), .. for each subplots.
    • Do not forget to write the summary and plain language summary when relevant.
    • Make sure all supplementary figures are listed in chronological order.
    • Make sure to check the rendered PDF to see issues.
    • Make sure to use section headers (section, subsection, paragraph) appropriately.
    • Make sure you paper/project github repository is listed in the code or data availability statement.

1. Scientific Inquiry and Research Question

  • Clarity and Significance
    • Excellent: The research question is explicitly stated, addressing a significant and current problem in seismology. The study fills a clear gap in existing knowledge and has the potential for high impact.
    • Good: The research question is clear and relevant but may lack in addressing a significant gap or impact.
    • Fair: The research question is somewhat vague or not fully aligned with current issues in the field.
    • Poor: The research question is unclear or irrelevant to contemporary seismological research.
  • Originality
    • Excellent: The study presents novel concepts or methodologies that advance the field or repurpose known methods to new research field
    • Good: Offers some new insights but builds partially on existing work without significant innovation.
    • Fair: Replicates previous work with minimal new contributions.
    • Poor: Lacks originality and does not contribute new knowledge.
  • Literature Review
    • Excellent: Provides a comprehensive and critical review of existing literature, covering a broad spectrum of relevant studies globally. Effectively situates the research within the context of the field and identifies clear gaps that the study addresses. The introduction contains references from a vast representation of the community by means of referencing the literature from authors in Europe, in the United States, in Canada, and in Asia if relevant.
    • Good: Reviews key literature adequately but may miss some important studies or lack depth in critical analysis.
    • Fair: Literature review is limited, missing significant contributions or lacking in critical evaluation. The literature review only cites a few papers that are listed again many times in the rest of the paper, instead of citing a broader body of literature.
    • Poor: Inadequate or superficial literature review that fails to contextualize the research properly.

2. Methodology and Data Analysis

  • Approach and Rigor
    • Excellent: Employs robust and appropriate methodologies with thorough justification for all analytical choices.
    • Good: Uses appropriate methods but with limited justification or exploration of alternatives.
    • Fair: Methodology is acceptable but lacks depth, contains minor flaws, or was not tested appropriately for correctness.
    • Poor: Methodology is inappropriate or flawed, undermining the study’s validity.
  • Reproducibility and Workflow Description
    • Excellent: The workflow is meticulously described, enabling full reproducibility of the research. Authors have thoroughly tested their workflow and functions, demonstrating correctness and reliability. Detailed documentation allows others to replicate the analysis seamlessly. The author demonstrated that the script runs with available data with linked and available notebooks.
    • Good: Workflow is described sufficiently for reproduction, with evidence of testing, though minor details may be lacking.
    • Fair: Workflow description is incomplete, making reproduction difficult. Limited testing of workflow and functions is evident.
    • Poor: Workflow is poorly described or undocumented, with no evidence of testing, preventing reproducibility.
  • Big Data Handling
    • Excellent: Effectively manages and analyzes large datasets using advanced computational techniques. Demonstrates proficiency in big data analytics, optimizing performance, and resource utilization.
    • Good: Manages large datasets adequately but may not utilize the most efficient or advanced techniques.
    • Fair: Handles data with some difficulty; limited use of big data tools.
    • Poor: Ineffective data management leading to compromised analysis.

3. Open Science Practices

  • Data Availability
    • Excellent: Most datasets are publicly available in reputable repositories with clear metadata and under open licenses facilitating reuse.
    • Good: Data are available but may lack detailed metadata or are under restrictive licenses.
    • Fair: Limited data are available, or access is cumbersome. Metadata files are missing or not existing.
    • Poor: Data are not made available publicly, or the provided data is incomplete and lacks any accompanying metadata or description.
  • Code Availability
    • Excellent: All code is available on GitHub or similar platforms with comprehensive documentation and open-source licensing. Code repositories are well-organized and include instructions for setup and execution.
    • Good: Code is available but lacks full documentation or clear licensing.
    • Fair: Code availability is limited, with minimal documentation.
    • Poor: The code is not shared, hindering reproducibility. The code is available but not reproducible, and errors are produced.
  • Transparency and Compliance
    • Excellent: Clear statements on data and code availability are included, fully adhering to open science and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles.
    • Good: Statements are present but may lack detail or full compliance with best practices.
    • Fair: Statements are incomplete or vague regarding availability.
    • Poor: No statements on data or code availability are provided.

4. Clarity and Conciseness

  • Writing Quality
    • Excellent: The manuscript is exceptionally well-written, with clear, concise language and a logical flow that guides the reader. There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
    • Good: Generally well-written but may contain minor ambiguities or redundancies. Few grammatical or spelling errors that do not impede understanding.
    • Fair: Writing is understandable but lacks clarity or contains frequent redundancies and grammatical errors.
    • Poor: Writing is unclear, poorly organized, with significant grammatical errors that hinder comprehension.
  • Statements and Conclusions
    • Excellent: Conclusions are direct, well-supported by data, and succinctly stated. Implications and recommendations are clearly articulated without unnecessary elaboration.
    • Good: Conclusions are supported but may be overly verbose or lack depth in implications.
    • Fair: Conclusions are loosely connected to the data or are somewhat ambiguous.
    • Poor: Conclusions are unsupported, vague, or not aligned with the study’s findings.

5. Impact and Significance

  • Advancement of the Field
    • Excellent: The findings and/or the developed method significantly advance understanding and have high potential for influencing future research or applications.
    • Good: Contributes to the field but may have limited immediate impact.
    • Fair: Offers minimal advancement or is largely confirmatory.
    • Poor: Does not contribute meaningfully to the field.
  • Broader Implications
    • Excellent: Demonstrates clear connections to broader scientific questions or practical applications, such as hazard mitigation or policy development. The method is applicable in related fields and allows other fields to advance too.
    • Good: Indicates some broader implications but lacks comprehensive discussion.
    • Fair: Minimal mention of broader impacts.
    • Poor: No discussion of the wider significance of the work.

6. Ethical Considerations

  • Data Ethics and Permissions
    • Excellent: All ethical considerations are thoroughly addressed, with necessary permissions obtained and documented. Data use complies with legal and ethical standards. The manuscript also describes the limitation of the approaches used and the possible limitations in the conclusions with respect to assumptions in the methods an data processing, and discuss possible avenues to improve on it.
    • Good: Ethical considerations are addressed but may lack detailed documentation. Discussion about limitation of the conclusion with respect to limited data or method is acknowledged.
    • Fair: Ethical considerations are minimally addressed. No discussion about limitation from the approach and data is considered.
    • Poor: Ethical issues are ignored or improperly handled. No discussion about limitation from the data/method is acknowledge.
  • Conflict of Interest
    • Excellent: All potential conflicts of interest are transparently disclosed.
    • Good: Disclosures are made but may lack full transparency.
    • Fair: Disclosures are incomplete or vague.
    • Poor: Conflicts of interest are not disclosed.
  • Acknowledgements
    • Excellent: the acknowledgment section includes all funding sources, gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the reviewers and by names if those were provided in the review, and relevant acknowledgments to other scientists who have contributed to the project overall but not to this manuscript.
    • Good: funding sources and reviewers are acknowledged.
    • Fair: only funding sources are acknowledged.
    • Poor: neither funding nor collaborators are acknowledged.

7. Presentation and Organization

  • Manuscript Structure
    • Excellent: Follows a logical structure and adheres to the target journal’s guidelines with all necessary sections. Transitions smoothly between topics, enhancing readability.
    • Good: Structure is generally good but may have minor organizational issues.
    • Fair: Organization is acceptable but may confuse the reader at times.
    • Poor: Poorly structured, making it difficult to follow the content.
  • Figures and Visual Aids
    • Excellent: Figures are compelling, clearly labeled with legible fonts (appropriate font size), and significantly enhance understanding. Axis and colorbar labels are consistent throughout the manuscript. When possible, axis and/or colorbars are shared throughout subplots. Captions are descriptive of the figure content without adding comments or analysis. All figures are cited in order within the manuscript, including supplementary materials, which are properly listed and referenced.
    • Good: Visual aids are helpful but may lack some clarity or detail. Fonts are readable. Captions are generally descriptive but may include minor analysis. Figures are mostly cited in order.
    • Fair: Visual aids are present but poorly designed or labeled. Fonts may be too small or unclear. Captions are insufficient or include unnecessary commentary. Figures may be cited out of order.
    • Poor: Lacks visual aids, or they are confusing and detract from the content. Figures are not cited properly in the manuscript.
  • Citations and References
    • Excellent: Citations are well-formatted and consistent throughout the manuscript, adhering to the target journal’s guidelines. All sources are appropriately credited, and the reference list is complete and accurate.
    • Good: Citations are generally well-formatted with minor inconsistencies. Reference list is mostly accurate.
    • Fair: Several formatting issues with citations; inconsistent styles used. Reference list contains errors.
    • Poor: Citations are poorly formatted or missing, not following any consistent style. Reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.
  • Formatting and Compliance
    • Excellent: Fully adheres to all formatting guidelines of the target journal, including grammar, spelling, and manuscript structure. There are no grammatical or formatting errors.
    • Good: Minor deviations from guidelines or occasional formatting errors. -Fair: Several formatting issues that need correction; noticeable grammatical errors.
    • Poor: Does not follow the required formatting guidelines; numerous grammatical and formatting errors.

By adhering to this comprehensive rubric, our publication aim to meet the highest standards in observational seismological research. This includes:

  • Reproducibility: Providing a well-described workflow and thoroughly tested methods to enable others to replicate the study confidently.
  • Literature Integration: Conducting an exemplary literature search that encompasses a broad spectrum of the global scientific community, ensuring the research is well-situated within the existing body of knowledge.
  • Writing Excellence: Maintaining impeccable language quality with no grammatical or formatting errors, and ensuring all citations and references are correctly formatted.
  • Effective Visual Communication: Crafting compelling figures with clear labels and legible fonts, accompanied by descriptive captions that focus solely on the figure content. Ensuring all figures and supplementary materials are correctly cited and listed in order enhances the manuscript’s clarity and professionalism.