Use when targeting Earth System Science Data (ESSD) or deciding whether an earth-system dataset fits this venue. Encodes the journal's data-paper fit, the open-deposition-with-DOI requirement, quality and reuse-documentation bar, Copernicus house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when targeting Earth System Science Data (ESSD) or deciding whether an earth-system dataset fits this venue. Encodes the journal's data-paper fit, the open-deposition-with-DOI requirement, quality and reuse-documentation bar, Copernicus house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Earth System Science Data (earth-system-science-data)
Journal positioning
Earth System Science Data (ESSD) is the Copernicus / European Geosciences Union venue for
data papers: peer-reviewed articles whose primary product is an original, high-quality,
openly deposited dataset of lasting value to earth-system science. The defining expectation
is not a new scientific conclusion but a reusable dataset: the manuscript documents how
the data were produced, calibrated, quality-controlled, and how others should reuse them,
while the dataset itself lives in a FAIR public repository with its own persistent
identifier (DOI). An analysis or interpretation paper that mines data toward a hypothesis,
or a paper whose data are not openly and permanently available, is a fundamental misfit
here. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the
journal's current author guidance. Before submitting, re-check the live ESSD / Copernicus
author instructions and data policy.
When to trigger
The author has produced an original dataset (observations, reanalysis, compilation, model
output) and wants to publish it as a citable data paper rather than a research article.
A measurement campaign or long-term record needs a venue that rewards the data product
itself, separate from any later analysis paper.
The author is choosing between ESSD as a data paper and a domain journal (e.g.
water-resources-research, global-biogeochemical-cycles) for an analysis paper.
The author needs ESSD's open-deposition-with-DOI requirement and quality/reuse
documentation bar.
Scope & topic fit
Original observational datasets across the earth system: atmosphere, ocean, land surface,
cryosphere, biosphere, solid earth, and human–environment interfaces.
Long-term monitoring records, field/campaign measurements, and instrument or station
networks with documented provenance.
Harmonized compilations and syntheses that merge heterogeneous sources into a single
consistent, value-added product.
Gridded products, reanalyses, and model output of broad reuse value, with versioning and
uncertainty information.
Remote-sensing and retrieval datasets with algorithm description, validation, and quality
flags.
Methodologically novel data-processing or quality-control workflows when the resulting
dataset is the deliverable.
Method & evidence bar
The dataset must be original and reusable, not a re-packaging of an already-published
product; novelty lies in the data, not in an interpretation.
The data must be openly deposited in a FAIR repository with a persistent DOI before
acceptance; a "data available on request" statement does not satisfy the journal.
Production must be fully documented: instruments, sampling, calibration, processing chain,
versioning, and the exact contents and format of the deposited files.
Quality must be demonstrated with quantitative quality control, validation against
independent references where possible, and explicit, traceable uncertainty.
Reuse must be enabled: clear metadata, variable definitions, units, flags, file structure,
and guidance on appropriate and inappropriate uses.
The dataset's value and the user community it serves should be argued concretely, not
asserted.
Structure & house style
Copernicus data-paper format; the manuscript and the deposited dataset are reviewed
together — re-check current article types and structure on the live guide.
The text must describe data generation and documentation, not advance a scientific
hypothesis; interpretation belongs in a companion analysis paper elsewhere.
A prominent data availability statement must give the repository, DOI, version, and
license; the DOI must resolve to the actual data.
Figures and tables should characterize the dataset (coverage maps, time–space sampling,
validation scatter, uncertainty, flag distributions), not argue a result.
Open-access, open-review, and open-data are the norm; the deposited files must match what
the paper describes exactly.
Official-submission checklist
Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and
../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Copernicus/ESSD anchors, then
cite the current ESSD page you checked.
Search the live site for "Earth System Science Data author guidelines" and follow the
current Copernicus version.
Confirm the dataset is deposited in an approved FAIR repository with a resolving DOI,
version, and an open license, and that the deposited files match the manuscript.
Re-check the data-paper structure, abstract/format expectations, and any required dataset
metadata or repository criteria.
If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions
win.
Pre-submission self-check
The deliverable is a reusable dataset, not an analysis/interpretation paper.
The data are deposited in a FAIR repository with a resolving DOI, version, and open license.
Production, calibration, processing, and file contents are fully documented.
Quality is shown with quantitative QC, validation, and traceable uncertainty.
Metadata, variable definitions, units, and flags enable independent reuse.
The deposited files exactly match what the manuscript describes.
Common desk-reject triggers
An analysis/interpretation paper submitted as if it were a data paper.
A dataset that is not openly available with a resolving DOI, or is "available on request."
Re-packaging of an already-published dataset with no original, value-added product.
Insufficient documentation of production, quality control, or uncertainty.
Metadata too sparse for independent reuse (missing units, flags, or variable definitions).
A mismatch between the deposited files and the dataset described in the manuscript.
Re-routing decision
The dataset underpins a scientific conclusion → an analysis venue such as
communications-earth-and-environment or a domain journal, with ESSD as the data citation.
Carbon/nutrient flux data feeding a budget analysis → global-biogeochemical-cycles.
Hydrologic data feeding a process/method study → water-resources-research / journal-of-hydrology.
Climate model/reanalysis output used for a climate-science argument → journal-of-climate.
Solid-earth/geochemical data interpreted as a process result → earth-and-planetary-science-letters.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Earth System Science Data
[Data product] <what the dataset is and what community reuses it>
[Deposition] <repository + DOI + version + license status>
[Quality/documentation] <does QC + validation + metadata clear ESSD's reuse bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <data-paper structure / FAIR deposition / metadata / open-review / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if it is an analysis paper, a better-matched venue>
