| name | epsl-reporting-and-reproducibility |
| description | Use when assembling the supplementary material, data-availability statement, and FAIR data deposit for an Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) manuscript. EPSL follows Elsevier's research-data policies and the community expects deposition in discipline repositories — EarthChem, PANGAEA, IRIS/EarthScope, MagIC, NASA PDS, Zenodo. It guides reporting and deposit; it does not generate the data. |
Reporting & Reproducibility (epsl-reporting-and-reproducibility)
The letters format pushes almost everything load-bearing but non-narrative — full analytical tables,
method details, standards data, model configurations — into the supplement and the repositories.
That makes the supplement and deposit part of the reviewed science, not an afterthought. EPSL sits
inside Elsevier's research-data framework (data statements, repository linking), and its communities
run mature FAIR infrastructure; reviewers know the canonical archive for each data type and notice
absences. Re-check the current mandate wording on the official Guide for Authors.
When to trigger
- Assembling supplementary text, tables, and figures
- Writing the data-availability statement and choosing repositories
- Depositing geochemical tables, waveforms, paleomagnetic data, model code, or mission-derived products
- Making sure a reader could re-derive every figure and headline number
What to build
- A methods supplement that stands alone. Instrumentation, chemistry/procedures, standards with
measured-vs-accepted values, blank records, correction sequence, and reduction software with
versions — enough that a peer lab could replicate the campaign.
- Complete data tables. Every analysis (not just plotted ones), every correction applied, with
units, σ-levels, and metadata columns (coordinates, sample IDs, stratigraphic height); machine-
readable formats, not PDF-only.
- A data-availability statement with resolvable identifiers. DOIs/accessions, not "available on
request" — Elsevier's data policy and the community both treat that phrase as a red flag.
- Code and models. Reduction scripts, inversion configurations, and model input decks deposited
(Zenodo or equivalent) with versions pinned; state the random seed for stochastic steps.
- Restricted material handled explicitly. Mission data under embargo or proprietary industry data:
say what is withheld, why, and the release path.
Deposition routing: data type → community repository
| Data type | Expected archive | Note |
|---|
| Geochemistry / isotope tables | EarthChem Library (DOI per dataset) | the NSF-backed geochemistry standard |
| Marine, paleoclimate, observational Earth data | PANGAEA | editor-curated, DOI-issuing, FAIR-aligned |
| Seismic waveforms / station products | IRIS / EarthScope services | cite network DOIs |
| Paleomagnetic / rock-magnetic data | MagIC | the community's designated archive |
| Planetary mission data / derived products | NASA PDS (or ESA PSA) | cite the archive bundle, instrument, version |
| Geochronology reduction files | EarthChem / Zenodo | include tracer + constants metadata |
| Code, model configs, notebooks | Zenodo / GitHub+Zenodo DOI | pin versions; archive the release, not the repo URL |
Worked micro-example (illustrative — the deposit for the ash-bed geochronology Letter)
A reviewer-ready package for the extinction-tempo study (illustrative):
- Supplement: full CA-ID-TIMS procedure, tracer and decay constants with citations, standards
table (measured vs accepted, per session), blank records, and the age-model priors.
- EarthChem: the complete grain-by-grain U-Pb table — including the two excluded inherited grains
— with coordinates and bed heights, under its own DOI.
- Zenodo: the Bayesian eruption-tempo model config and scripts, seeded, versions pinned; rerunning
it regenerates Figure 3 and the headline 66.021 Ma age exactly.
- Statement: "All isotopic data are available at EarthChem (DOI: illustrative); model code at
Zenodo (DOI: illustrative)." One sentence, two resolvable identifiers.
The self-test before submission: hand the supplement + deposits to a colleague and ask them to
re-derive the abstract's numbers. Anything they cannot re-derive is under-reported.
Referee-pushback patterns and the venue-specific fix
- "Data availability inadequate." → Replace "on request" with the discipline archive + DOI; EPSL's
communities have a canonical home for nearly every data type.
- "Methods insufficient to assess the ages." → Move the full traceability chain (standards, blanks,
constants, software versions) into the supplement.
- "Figures cannot be reproduced from the tables." → Deposit the reduction scripts and confirm the
pipeline regenerates every exhibit.
Anti-patterns
- "Data available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request"
- Plotted analyses only, with rejected/excluded data invisible everywhere
- PDF-only data tables that cannot be re-used
- Waveforms, paleomag, or mission products parked in a generic repository when a designated community archive exists
- A supplement assembled the night before submission, drifting from the manuscript's numbers
Output format
【Supplement】methods + standards + blanks + full tables? [Y/N]
【Deposit】data type → repository + DOI/accession (list)
【Statement】written with resolvable identifiers? [Y/N]
【Code/models】archived, versioned, seeded? [Y/N or N/A]
【Re-derivable】abstract numbers regenerate from deposit? [Y/N]
【Next】epsl-writing-style
Supplementary resources
