Articles | Volume 25, issue 20
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13903-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13903-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Review article
| Highlight paper
| 
28 Oct 2025
Review article | Highlight paper |
| 28 Oct 2025
| 28 Oct 2025
Review of interactive open-access publishing with community-based open peer review for improved scientific discourse and quality assurance
Institute of Chemistry, University Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
Ken S. Carslaw
Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
Thomas Koop
Faculty of Chemistry, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany
Multiphase Chemistry Department, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, 55128 Mainz, Germany
Related authors
Frédéric Mathonat, François Enault, Raphaëlle Péguilhan, Muriel Joly, Mariline Théveniot, Jean-Luc Baray, Barbara Ervens, and Pierre Amato
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3534, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3534, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
The atmosphere plays key roles in Earth’s biogeochemical cycles. Airborne microbes were demonstrated previously to participate in the processing of organic carbon in clouds. Using a combinaison of complementary methods, we examined here, for the first time, their potential contribution to the pool of nitrogen compounds. Airborne microorganisms interact with abundant forms of nitrogen in the air and cloud and we provide global estimates.
Raphaëlle Péguilhan, Florent Rossi, Muriel Joly, Engy Nasr, Bérénice Batut, François Enault, Barbara Ervens, and Pierre Amato
Biogeosciences, 22, 1257–1275, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1257-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1257-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Using comparative metagenomics and metatranscriptomics, we examined the functioning of airborne microorganisms in clouds and a clear atmosphere. Clouds are atmospheric masses where multiple microbial processes are promoted compared with a clear atmosphere. Overrepresented microbial functions of interest include the processing of chemical compounds, biomass production, and regulation of oxidants. This has implications for biogeochemical cycles and microbial ecology.
Barbara Ervens, Pierre Amato, Kifle Aregahegn, Muriel Joly, Amina Khaled, Tiphaine Labed-Veydert, Frédéric Mathonat, Leslie Nuñez López, Raphaëlle Péguilhan, and Minghui Zhang
Biogeosciences, 22, 243–256, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-243-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-243-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric microorganisms are a small fraction of Earth's microbiome, with bacteria being a significant part. Aerosolized bacteria are airborne for a few days, encountering unique chemical and physical conditions affecting stress levels and survival. We explore chemical and microphysical conditions bacteria encounter, highlighting potential nutrient and oxidant limitations and diverse effects by pollutants, which may ultimately impact the microbiome's role in global ecosystems and biodiversity.
Barbara Ervens, Andrew Rickard, Bernard Aumont, William P. L. Carter, Max McGillen, Abdelwahid Mellouki, John Orlando, Bénédicte Picquet-Varrault, Paul Seakins, William R. Stockwell, Luc Vereecken, and Timothy J. Wallington
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13317–13339, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13317-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13317-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Chemical mechanisms describe the chemical processes in atmospheric models that are used to describe the changes in the atmospheric composition. Therefore, accurate chemical mechanisms are necessary to predict the evolution of air pollution and climate change. The article describes all steps that are needed to build chemical mechanisms and discusses the advances and needs of experimental and theoretical research activities needed to build reliable chemical mechanisms.
Leslie Nuñez López, Pierre Amato, and Barbara Ervens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 5181–5198, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5181-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5181-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Living bacteria comprise a small particle fraction in the atmosphere. Our model study shows that atmospheric bacteria in clouds may efficiently biodegrade formic and acetic acids that affect the acidity of rain. We conclude that current atmospheric models underestimate losses of these acids as they only consider chemical processes. We suggest that biodegradation can affect atmospheric concentration not only of formic and acetic acids but also of other volatile, moderately soluble organics.
Amina Khaled, Minghui Zhang, and Barbara Ervens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 1989–2009, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1989-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1989-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Chemical reactions with iron in clouds and aerosol form and cycle reactive oxygen species (ROS). Previous model studies assumed that all cloud droplets (particles) contain iron, while single-particle analyses showed otherwise. By means of a model, we explore the bias in predicted ROS budgets by distributing a given iron mass to either all or only a few droplets (particles). Implications for oxidation potential, radical loss and iron oxidation state are discussed.
Ramon Campos Braga, Barbara Ervens, Daniel Rosenfeld, Meinrat O. Andreae, Jan-David Förster, Daniel Fütterer, Lianet Hernández Pardo, Bruna A. Holanda, Tina Jurkat-Witschas, Ovid O. Krüger, Oliver Lauer, Luiz A. T. Machado, Christopher Pöhlker, Daniel Sauer, Christiane Voigt, Adrian Walser, Manfred Wendisch, Ulrich Pöschl, and Mira L. Pöhlker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 17513–17528, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-17513-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-17513-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Interactions of aerosol particles with clouds represent a large uncertainty in estimates of climate change. Properties of aerosol particles control their ability to act as cloud condensation nuclei. Using aerosol measurements in the Amazon, we performed model studies to compare predicted and measured cloud droplet number concentrations at cloud bases. Our results confirm previous estimates of particle hygroscopicity in this region.
Ramon Campos Braga, Daniel Rosenfeld, Ovid O. Krüger, Barbara Ervens, Bruna A. Holanda, Manfred Wendisch, Trismono Krisna, Ulrich Pöschl, Meinrat O. Andreae, Christiane Voigt, and Mira L. Pöhlker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 14079–14088, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14079-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14079-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Quantifying the precipitation within clouds is crucial for our understanding of the Earth's hydrological cycle. Using in situ measurements of cloud and rain properties over the Amazon Basin and Atlantic Ocean, we show here a linear relationship between the effective radius (re) and precipitation water content near the tops of convective clouds for different pollution states and temperature levels. Our results emphasize the role of re to determine both initiation and amount of precipitation.
Mira L. Pöhlker, Minghui Zhang, Ramon Campos Braga, Ovid O. Krüger, Ulrich Pöschl, and Barbara Ervens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 11723–11740, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-11723-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-11723-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds cool our atmosphere. The role of small aerosol particles in affecting them represents one of the largest uncertainties in current estimates of climate change. Traditionally it is assumed that cloud droplets only form particles of diameters ~ 100 nm (
accumulation mode). Previous studies suggest that this can also occur in smaller particles (
Aitken mode). Our study provides a general framework to estimate under which aerosol and cloud conditions Aitken mode particles affect clouds.
Minghui Zhang, Amina Khaled, Pierre Amato, Anne-Marie Delort, and Barbara Ervens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3699–3724, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3699-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3699-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Although primary biological aerosol particles (PBAPs, bioaerosols) represent a small fraction of total atmospheric aerosol burden, they might affect climate and public health. We summarize which PBAP properties are important to affect their inclusion in clouds and interaction with light and might also affect their residence time and transport in the atmosphere. Our study highlights that not only chemical and physical but also biological processes can modify these physicochemical properties.
Amina Khaled, Minghui Zhang, Pierre Amato, Anne-Marie Delort, and Barbara Ervens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3123–3141, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3123-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3123-2021, 2021
Saly Jaber, Muriel Joly, Maxence Brissy, Martin Leremboure, Amina Khaled, Barbara Ervens, and Anne-Marie Delort
Biogeosciences, 18, 1067–1080, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-1067-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-1067-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Our study is of interest to atmospheric scientists and environmental microbiologists, as we show that clouds can be considered a medium where bacteria efficiently degrade and transform amino acids, in competition with chemical processes. As current atmospheric multiphase models are restricted to chemical degradation of organic compounds, our conclusions motivate further model development.
Matteo Krüger, Tommaso Galeazzo, Ivan Eremets, Bertil Schmidt, Ulrich Pöschl, Manabu Shiraiwa, and Thomas Berkemeier
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 7357–7371, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-7357-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-7357-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This work uses machine learning to predict saturation vapor pressures of atmospherically-relevant organic compounds, crucial for partitioning of secondary organic aerosol (SOA). We introduce a new method using graph convolutional neural networks, in which molecular graphs enable the model to capture molecular connectivity better than with non-structural embeddings. The method shows strong agreement with experimentally determined vapor pressures, and outperforms existing estimation methods.
Léa M. C. Prévost, Leighton A. Regayre, Jill S. Johnson, Doug McNeall, Sean Milton, and Kenneth S. Carslaw
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4795, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4795, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models rely on uncertain adjustable parameters. We tested millions of combinations of these inputs to see how well the model matches real-world data. We found that no single set of inputs can match several observations at the same time, which suggests that the issue lies in the model itself. We developed a method to detect these conflicts and trace them back trace them to their source. The aim is to help modellers target improvements that reduce uncertainty in climate projections.
Xinyi Huang, Paul R. Field, Benjamin J. Murray, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Floortje van den Heuvel, and Kenneth S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 11363–11406, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-11363-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-11363-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Cold-air outbreak (CAO) clouds play a vital role in climate prediction. This study explores the responses of CAO clouds to aerosols and ice production under different environmental conditions. We found that CAO cloud responses vary with cloud temperature and are strongly controlled by the liquid–ice partitioning in these clouds, suggesting the importance of good representations of cloud microphysics properties to predict the behaviours of CAO clouds in a warming climate.
Bruno B. Meller, Marco A. Franco, Rafael Valiati, Christopher Pöhlker, Luiz A. T. Machado, Florian Ditas, Leslie A. Kremper, Subha S. Raj, Cleo Q. Dias-Júnior, Flávio A. F. D'Oliveira, Luciana V. Rizzo, Ulrich Pöschl, and Paulo Artaxo
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4581, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4581, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols are tiny particles that help clouds form and influence the climate. In the Amazon, clear events of new particle formation are rare, making it difficult to explain the origin of these particles. Using ten years of measurements, we discovered a subtle but frequent process called Quiet New Particle Formation. This hidden mechanism slowly produces and grows small particles and is responsible for nearly half of the smallest aerosols observed during the wet season.
Ken S. Carslaw, Leighton A. Regayre, Ulrike Proske, Andrew Gettelman, David M. H. Sexton, Yun Qian, Lauren Marshall, Oliver Wild, Marcus van Lier-Walqui, Annika Oertel, Saloua Peatier, Ben Yang, Jill S. Johnson, Sihan Li, Daniel T. McCoy, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Christina J. Williamson, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Kuniko Yamazaki, and Ben B. B. Booth
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4341, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4341, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
A major challenge in climate science is reducing projection uncertainty despite advances in models and observational constraints. Perturbed parameter ensembles (PPEs) offer a powerful tool to explore and reduce uncertainty by revealing model weaknesses and guiding development. PPEs are now widely applied across climate systems and scales. We argue they should be prioritized alongside complexity and resolution in model resource planning.
Leighton A. Regayre, Léa M. C. Prévost, Kunal Ghosh, Jill S. Johnson, Jeremy E. Oakley, Jonathan Owen, Iain Webb, and Ken S. Carslaw
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3755, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3755, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Tiny particles called aerosols affect how much sunlight the Earth reflects back into space – one of the biggest climate uncertainties. We use a large set of climate model simulations and find that uncertainty drops in some regions, but persists in other areas, after comparing models to observations. By identifying the specific processes that cause the remaining uncertainty, we guide future efforts to reduce the aerosol forcing uncertainty so we can make more reliable climate predictions.
Xuemei Wang, Kenneth S. Carslaw, Daniel P. Grosvenor, and Hamish Gordon
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 9685–9717, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-9685-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-9685-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Anthropogenic emissions can influence aerosol particle number concentrations and cloud formation. Our model simulations predict around a 10 % increase in the particle and cloud droplet number concentrations when doubling the emissions in the Manaus region in the Amazonian wet season. However, the corresponding changes in cloud water and rain mass are around 4 %. Such a weak response implies that this convective environment is not sensitive to the localized anthropogenic emission changes here.
Xu-Cheng He, Nathan Luke Abraham, Han Ding, Maria R. Russo, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Yao Ge, Xuemei Wang, Anthony C. Jones, Pedro Campuzano-Jost, Benjamin Nault, Agnieszka Kupc, Donald Blake, Jose L. Jimenez, Christina J. Williamson, Kenneth S. Carslaw, James Weber, Alexander T. Archibald, and Hamish Gordon
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3700, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3700, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols affect clouds and climate. However, current climate models still struggle to simulate them accurately. We used aircraft data from a global mission to evaluate how well the UK Earth System Model represents aerosols and their precursors. Our results show that the model misses key formation processes in clean ocean regions, suggesting that future improvements should focus on better representing how aerosols form naturally in the atmosphere.
Frédéric Mathonat, François Enault, Raphaëlle Péguilhan, Muriel Joly, Mariline Théveniot, Jean-Luc Baray, Barbara Ervens, and Pierre Amato
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3534, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3534, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
The atmosphere plays key roles in Earth’s biogeochemical cycles. Airborne microbes were demonstrated previously to participate in the processing of organic carbon in clouds. Using a combinaison of complementary methods, we examined here, for the first time, their potential contribution to the pool of nitrogen compounds. Airborne microorganisms interact with abundant forms of nitrogen in the air and cloud and we provide global estimates.
Rachel W. N. Sansom, Jill S. Johnson, Leighton A. Regayre, Lindsay A. Lee, and Ken S. Carslaw
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3104, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3104, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The cloud transition from stratocumulus to cumulus features a distinct decrease in cloud cover. We used a high-resolution model to simulate many instances of the transition with different environmental conditions. In low aerosol conditions, the transition occurred faster due to drizzle depleting the cloud of moisture and aerosol, whereas in high aerosol conditions, other factors were more important. Understanding different regimes is important for accurately simulating clouds in global models.
Xinyue Shao, Yaman Liu, Xinyi Dong, Minghuai Wang, Ruochong Xu, Joel A. Thornton, Duseong S. Jo, Man Yue, Wenxiang Shen, Manish Shrivastava, Stephen R. Arnold, and Ken S. Carslaw
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1526, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1526, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Highly Oxygenated Organic Molecules (HOMs) are key precursors of secondary organic aerosols (SOA). Incorporating the HOMs chemical mechanism into a global climate model allows for a reasonable reproduction of observed HOM characteristics. HOM-SOA constitutes a significant fraction of global SOA, and its distribution and formation pathways exhibit strong sensitivity to uncertainties in autoxidation processes and peroxy radical branching ratios.
Rafael Valiati, Bruno Backes Meller, Marco Aurélio Franco, Luciana Varanda Rizzo, Luiz Augusto Toledo Machado, Sebastian Brill, Bruna A. Holanda, Leslie A. Kremper, Subha S. Raj, Samara Carbone, Cléo Quaresma Dias-Júnior, Fernando Gonçalves Morais, Meinrat O. Andreae, Ulrich Pöschl, Christopher Pöhlker, and Paulo Artaxo
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1078, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1078, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study highlights the different aerosol populations that are commonly observed in the central Amazon. Vertical gradients of aerosol optical and chemical properties were evaluated on different atmospheric conditions, and showed distinct characteristics of these particles. Intercontinental transport events bring to the region particles with a contrasting chemical composition, while vertical transport processes influence the aerosol properties by promoting the development of coating and aging.
Raphaëlle Péguilhan, Florent Rossi, Muriel Joly, Engy Nasr, Bérénice Batut, François Enault, Barbara Ervens, and Pierre Amato
Biogeosciences, 22, 1257–1275, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1257-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1257-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Using comparative metagenomics and metatranscriptomics, we examined the functioning of airborne microorganisms in clouds and a clear atmosphere. Clouds are atmospheric masses where multiple microbial processes are promoted compared with a clear atmosphere. Overrepresented microbial functions of interest include the processing of chemical compounds, biomass production, and regulation of oxidants. This has implications for biogeochemical cycles and microbial ecology.
Sebastian Brill, Björn Nillius, Jan-David Förster, Paulo Artaxo, Florian Ditas, Dennis Geis, Christian Gurk, Thomas Kenntner, Thomas Klimach, Mark Lamneck, Rafael Valiati, Bettina Weber, Stefan Wolff, Ulrich Pöschl, and Christopher Pöhlker
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-295, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-295, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Highly resolved vertical profiles are crucial for understanding ecosystem-atmosphere interactions. We developed the robotic lift (RoLi) as a platform for vertical profile measurements at the Amazon Tall Tower Observatory in the central Amazon basin. Initial results reveal distinct spatiotemporal patterns in altitude profiles of temperature, humidity, fog, and aerosol properties, offering new insights into the diurnal dynamics of convective daytime mixing and stable nighttime stratification.
Jianqiang Zhu, Guo Li, Uwe Kuhn, Bruno Backes Meller, Christopher Pöhlker, Paulo Artaxo, Ulrich Pöschl, Yafang Cheng, and Hang Su
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3911, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3911, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The manuscript reports unique measurement data on sub-40 nm particles and ions, especially those smaller than 10 nm in the Amazon from December 2022 to January 2023. A large number of sub-3 nm particles and naturally charged ions were present in the Amazonia boundary layer, and they showed a clear diurnal variation. The research will contribute to a better understanding of atmospheric processes in the pristine environment.
Denis Leppla, Stefanie Hildmann, Nora Zannoni, Leslie Kremper, Bruna Hollanda, Jonathan Williams, Christopher Pöhlker, Stefan Wolff, Marta Sà, Maria Cristina Solci, Ulrich Pöschl, and Thorsten Hoffmann
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-141, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-141, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The chemical composition of organic particles in the Amazon rainforest was investigated to understand how biogenic and human emissions influence the atmosphere in this unique ecosystem. Seasonal patterns were found where wet seasons were dominated by biogenic compounds from natural sources while dry seasons showed increased fire-related pollutants. These findings reveal how emissions, fires and long-range transport affect atmospheric chemistry, with implications for climate models.
Xinyue Shao, Minghuai Wang, Xinyi Dong, Yaman Liu, Stephen R. Arnold, Leighton A. Regayre, Duseong S. Jo, Wenxiang Shen, Hao Wang, Man Yue, Jingyi Wang, Wenxin Zhang, and Ken S. Carslaw
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4135, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4135, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses a global chemistry-climate model to investigate how new particle formation (NPF) from highly oxygenated organic molecules (HOMs) contributes to cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) in both preindustrial (PI) and present-day (PD) environments, and its impact on aerosol indirect radiative forcing. The findings highlight the crucial role of biogenic emissions in climate change, providing new insights for carbon-neutral scenarios and enhancing understanding of aerosol-cloud interactions.
Mega Octaviani, Benjamin A. Musa Bandowe, Qing Mu, Jake Wilson, Holger Tost, Hang Su, Yafang Cheng, Manabu Shiraiwa, Ulrich Pöschl, Thomas Berkemeier, and Gerhard Lammel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-186, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-186, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
This research explores the atmospheric concentration of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), a harmful air pollutant linked to lung cancer. Using advanced Earth system modeling, the study examines how BaP's degradation varies with temperature and humidity, affecting its global distribution and associated lung cancer risks. The findings reveal that BaP persists longer in colder, less humid regions, leading to higher lung cancer risks in parts of Europe and Asia.
Barbara Ervens, Pierre Amato, Kifle Aregahegn, Muriel Joly, Amina Khaled, Tiphaine Labed-Veydert, Frédéric Mathonat, Leslie Nuñez López, Raphaëlle Péguilhan, and Minghui Zhang
Biogeosciences, 22, 243–256, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-243-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-243-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric microorganisms are a small fraction of Earth's microbiome, with bacteria being a significant part. Aerosolized bacteria are airborne for a few days, encountering unique chemical and physical conditions affecting stress levels and survival. We explore chemical and microphysical conditions bacteria encounter, highlighting potential nutrient and oxidant limitations and diverse effects by pollutants, which may ultimately impact the microbiome's role in global ecosystems and biodiversity.
Florian Wieland, Nadine Bothen, Ralph Schwidetzky, Teresa M. Seifried, Paul Bieber, Ulrich Pöschl, Konrad Meister, Mischa Bonn, Janine Fröhlich-Nowoisky, and Hinrich Grothe
Biogeosciences, 22, 103–115, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-103-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-103-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Betula pendula is a widespread birch tree species containing ice nucleation agents that can trigger the freezing of cloud droplets and thereby alter the evolution of clouds. Our study identifies three distinct ice-nucleating macromolecule (INM) aggregates of varying size that can nucleate ice at temperatures up to –5.4°C. Our findings suggest that these vegetation-derived particles may influence atmospheric processes, weather, and climate more strongly than previously thought.
Ross J. Herbert, Alberto Sanchez-Marroquin, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Kirsty J. Pringle, Stephen R. Arnold, Benjamin J. Murray, and Kenneth S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 291–325, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-291-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-291-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol particles that help form ice in clouds vary in number and type around the world and with time. However, in many weather and climate models cloud ice is not linked to aerosols that are known to nucleate ice. Here we report the first steps towards representing ice-nucleating particles within the UK Earth System Model. We conclude that in addition to ice nucleation by sea spray and mineral components of soil dust, we also need to represent ice nucleation by the organic components of soils.
Erin N. Raif, Sarah L. Barr, Mark D. Tarn, James B. McQuaid, Martin I. Daily, Steven J. Abel, Paul A. Barrett, Keith N. Bower, Paul R. Field, Kenneth S. Carslaw, and Benjamin J. Murray
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 14045–14072, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-14045-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-14045-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Ice-nucleating particles (INPs) allow ice to form in clouds at temperatures warmer than −35°C. We measured INP concentrations over the Norwegian and Barents seas in weather events where cold air is ejected from the Arctic. These concentrations were among the highest measured in the Arctic. It is likely that the INPs were transported to the Arctic from distant regions. These results show it is important to consider hemispheric-scale INP processes to understand INP concentrations in the Arctic.
Masaru Yoshioka, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Ben B. B. Booth, Colin P. Morice, and Ken S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13681–13692, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13681-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13681-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
A 2020 regulation has reduced sulfur emissions from shipping by about 80 %, leading to a decrease in atmospheric aerosols that have a cooling effect primarily by affecting cloud properties and amounts. Our climate model simulations predict a global temperature increase of 0.04 K over the next 3 decades as a result, which could contribute to surpassing the Paris Agreement's 1.5 °C target. Reduced aerosols may have also contributed to the recent temperature spikes.
Barbara Ervens, Andrew Rickard, Bernard Aumont, William P. L. Carter, Max McGillen, Abdelwahid Mellouki, John Orlando, Bénédicte Picquet-Varrault, Paul Seakins, William R. Stockwell, Luc Vereecken, and Timothy J. Wallington
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13317–13339, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13317-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13317-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Chemical mechanisms describe the chemical processes in atmospheric models that are used to describe the changes in the atmospheric composition. Therefore, accurate chemical mechanisms are necessary to predict the evolution of air pollution and climate change. The article describes all steps that are needed to build chemical mechanisms and discusses the advances and needs of experimental and theoretical research activities needed to build reliable chemical mechanisms.
Xinyue Shao, Minghuai Wang, Xinyi Dong, Yaman Liu, Wenxiang Shen, Stephen R. Arnold, Leighton A. Regayre, Meinrat O. Andreae, Mira L. Pöhlker, Duseong S. Jo, Man Yue, and Ken S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 11365–11389, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11365-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11365-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Highly oxygenated organic molecules (HOMs) play an important role in atmospheric new particle formation (NPF). By semi-explicitly coupling the chemical mechanism of HOMs and a comprehensive nucleation scheme in a global climate model, the updated model shows better agreement with measurements of nucleation rate, growth rate, and NPF event frequency. Our results reveal that HOM-driven NPF leads to a considerable increase in particle and cloud condensation nuclei burden globally.
Luiz A. T. Machado, Jürgen Kesselmeier, Santiago Botía, Hella van Asperen, Meinrat O. Andreae, Alessandro C. de Araújo, Paulo Artaxo, Achim Edtbauer, Rosaria R. Ferreira, Marco A. Franco, Hartwig Harder, Sam P. Jones, Cléo Q. Dias-Júnior, Guido G. Haytzmann, Carlos A. Quesada, Shujiro Komiya, Jost Lavric, Jos Lelieveld, Ingeborg Levin, Anke Nölscher, Eva Pfannerstill, Mira L. Pöhlker, Ulrich Pöschl, Akima Ringsdorf, Luciana Rizzo, Ana M. Yáñez-Serrano, Susan Trumbore, Wanda I. D. Valenti, Jordi Vila-Guerau de Arellano, David Walter, Jonathan Williams, Stefan Wolff, and Christopher Pöhlker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 8893–8910, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8893-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8893-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Composite analysis of gas concentration before and after rainfall, during the day and night, gives insight into the complex relationship between trace gas variability and precipitation. The analysis helps us to understand the sources and sinks of trace gases within a forest ecosystem. It elucidates processes that are not discernible under undisturbed conditions and contributes to a deeper understanding of the trace gas life cycle and its intricate interactions with cloud dynamics in the Amazon.
Marco A. Franco, Rafael Valiati, Bruna A. Holanda, Bruno B. Meller, Leslie A. Kremper, Luciana V. Rizzo, Samara Carbone, Fernando G. Morais, Janaína P. Nascimento, Meinrat O. Andreae, Micael A. Cecchini, Luiz A. T. Machado, Milena Ponczek, Ulrich Pöschl, David Walter, Christopher Pöhlker, and Paulo Artaxo
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 8751–8770, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8751-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Amazon wet-season atmosphere was studied at the Amazon Tall Tower Observatory site, revealing vertical variations (between 60 and 325 m) in natural aerosols. Daytime mixing contrasted with nighttime stratification, with distinct rain-induced changes in aerosol populations. Notably, optical property recovery at higher levels was faster, while near-canopy aerosols showed higher scattering efficiency. These findings enhance our understanding of aerosol impacts on climate dynamics.
Leslie Nuñez López, Pierre Amato, and Barbara Ervens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 5181–5198, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5181-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5181-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Living bacteria comprise a small particle fraction in the atmosphere. Our model study shows that atmospheric bacteria in clouds may efficiently biodegrade formic and acetic acids that affect the acidity of rain. We conclude that current atmospheric models underestimate losses of these acids as they only consider chemical processes. We suggest that biodegradation can affect atmospheric concentration not only of formic and acetic acids but also of other volatile, moderately soluble organics.
Gabriela R. Unfer, Luiz A. T. Machado, Paulo Artaxo, Marco A. Franco, Leslie A. Kremper, Mira L. Pöhlker, Ulrich Pöschl, and Christopher Pöhlker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 3869–3882, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-3869-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-3869-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Amazonian aerosols and their interactions with precipitation were studied by understanding them in a 3D space based on three parameters that characterize the concentration and size distribution of aerosols. The results showed characteristic arrangements regarding seasonal and diurnal cycles, as well as when interacting with precipitation. The use of this 3D space appears to be a promising tool for aerosol population analysis and for model validation and parameterization.
Daniel A. Knopf, Markus Ammann, Thomas Berkemeier, Ulrich Pöschl, and Manabu Shiraiwa
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 3445–3528, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-3445-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-3445-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The initial step of interfacial and multiphase chemical processes involves adsorption and desorption of gas species. This study demonstrates the role of desorption energy governing the residence time of the gas species at the environmental interface. A parameterization is formulated that enables the prediction of desorption energy based on the molecular weight, polarizability, and oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the desorbing chemical species. Its application to gas–particle interactions is discussed.
Rolf Müller, Ulrich Pöschl, Thomas Koop, Thomas Peter, and Ken Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 15445–15453, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15445-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15445-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Paul J. Crutzen was a pioneer in atmospheric sciences and a kind-hearted, humorous person with empathy for the private lives of his colleagues and students. He made fundamental scientific contributions to a wide range of scientific topics in all parts of the atmosphere. Paul was among the founders of the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. His work will continue to be a guide for generations of scientists and environmental policymakers to come.
Hamza Ahsan, Hailong Wang, Jingbo Wu, Mingxuan Wu, Steven J. Smith, Susanne Bauer, Harrison Suchyta, Dirk Olivié, Gunnar Myhre, Hitoshi Matsui, Huisheng Bian, Jean-François Lamarque, Ken Carslaw, Larry Horowitz, Leighton Regayre, Mian Chin, Michael Schulz, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Toshihiko Takemura, and Vaishali Naik
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 14779–14799, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14779-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14779-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We examine the impact of the assumed effective height of SO2 injection, SO2 and BC emission seasonality, and the assumed fraction of SO2 emissions injected as SO4 on climate and chemistry model results. We find that the SO2 injection height has a large impact on surface SO2 concentrations and, in some models, radiative flux. These assumptions are a
hiddensource of inter-model variability and may be leading to bias in some climate model results.
Leighton A. Regayre, Lucia Deaconu, Daniel P. Grosvenor, David M. H. Sexton, Christopher Symonds, Tom Langton, Duncan Watson-Paris, Jane P. Mulcahy, Kirsty J. Pringle, Mark Richardson, Jill S. Johnson, John W. Rostron, Hamish Gordon, Grenville Lister, Philip Stier, and Ken S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8749–8768, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8749-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8749-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol forcing of Earth’s energy balance has persisted as a major cause of uncertainty in climate simulations over generations of climate model development. We show that structural deficiencies in a climate model are exposed by comprehensively exploring parametric uncertainty and that these deficiencies limit how much the model uncertainty can be reduced through observational constraint. This provides a future pathway towards building models with greater physical realism and lower uncertainty.
Daniel P. Grosvenor and Kenneth S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 6743–6773, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6743-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6743-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We determine what causes long-term trends in short-wave (SW) radiative fluxes in two climate models. A positive trend occurs between 1850 and 1970 (increasing SW reflection) and a negative trend between 1970 and 2014; the pre-1970 positive trend is mainly driven by an increase in cloud droplet number concentrations due to increases in aerosol, and the 1970–2014 trend is driven by a decrease in cloud fraction, which we attribute to changes in clouds caused by greenhouse gas-induced warming.
Najin Kim, Hang Su, Nan Ma, Ulrich Pöschl, and Yafang Cheng
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 2771–2780, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2771-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2771-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a multiple-charging correction algorithm for a broad-supersaturation scanning cloud condensation nuclei (BS2-CCN) system which can obtain high time-resolution aerosol hygroscopicity and CCN activity. The correction algorithm aims at deriving the activation fraction's true value for each particle size. The meaningful differences between corrected and original κ values (single hygroscopicity parameter) emphasize the correction algorithm's importance for ambient aerosol measurement.
Ernesto Reyes-Villegas, Douglas Lowe, Jill S. Johnson, Kenneth S. Carslaw, Eoghan Darbyshire, Michael Flynn, James D. Allan, Hugh Coe, Ying Chen, Oliver Wild, Scott Archer-Nicholls, Alex Archibald, Siddhartha Singh, Manish Shrivastava, Rahul A. Zaveri, Vikas Singh, Gufran Beig, Ranjeet Sokhi, and Gordon McFiggans
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5763–5782, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5763-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5763-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Organic aerosols (OAs), their sources and their processes remain poorly understood. The volatility basis set (VBS) approach, implemented in air quality models such as WRF-Chem, can be a useful tool to describe primary OA (POA) production and aging. However, the main disadvantage is its complexity. We used a Gaussian process simulator to reproduce model results and to estimate the sources of model uncertainty. We do this by comparing the outputs with OA observations made at Delhi, India, in 2018.
Ting Lei, Hang Su, Nan Ma, Ulrich Pöschl, Alfred Wiedensohler, and Yafang Cheng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 4763–4774, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-4763-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-4763-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the hygroscopic behavior of levoglucosan and D-glucose nanoparticles using a nano-HTDMA. There is a weak size dependence of the hygroscopic growth factor of levoglucosan and D-glucose with diameters down to 20 nm, while a strong size dependence of the hygroscopic growth factor of D-glucose has been clearly observed in the size range 6 to 20 nm. The use of the DKA method leads to good agreement with the hygroscopic growth factor of glucose nanoparticles with diameters down to 6 nm.
Xuemei Wang, Hamish Gordon, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Meinrat O. Andreae, and Ken S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 4431–4461, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-4431-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-4431-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
New particle formation in the upper troposphere is important for the global boundary layer aerosol population, and they can be transported downward in Amazonia. We use a global and a regional model to quantify the number of aerosols that are formed at high altitude and transported downward in a 1000 km region. We find that the majority of the aerosols are from outside the region. This suggests that the 1000 km region is unlikely to be a
closed loopfor aerosol formation, transport and growth.
Thomas Berkemeier, Matteo Krüger, Aryeh Feinberg, Marcel Müller, Ulrich Pöschl, and Ulrich K. Krieger
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2037–2054, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2037-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2037-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Kinetic multi-layer models (KMs) successfully describe heterogeneous and multiphase atmospheric chemistry. In applications requiring repeated execution, however, these models can be too expensive. We trained machine learning surrogate models on output of the model KM-SUB and achieved high correlations. The surrogate models run orders of magnitude faster, which suggests potential applicability in global optimization tasks and as sub-modules in large-scale atmospheric models.
Ruth Price, Andrea Baccarini, Julia Schmale, Paul Zieger, Ian M. Brooks, Paul Field, and Ken S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 2927–2961, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-2927-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-2927-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Arctic clouds can control how much energy is absorbed by the surface or reflected back to space. Using a computer model of the atmosphere we investigated the formation of atmospheric particles that allow cloud droplets to form. We found that particles formed aloft are transported to the lowest part of the Arctic atmosphere and that this is a key source of particles. Our results have implications for the way Arctic clouds will behave in the future as climate change continues to impact the region.
Haley M. Royer, Mira L. Pöhlker, Ovid Krüger, Edmund Blades, Peter Sealy, Nurun Nahar Lata, Zezhen Cheng, Swarup China, Andrew P. Ault, Patricia K. Quinn, Paquita Zuidema, Christopher Pöhlker, Ulrich Pöschl, Meinrat Andreae, and Cassandra J. Gaston
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 981–998, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-981-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-981-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents atmospheric particle chemical composition and measurements of aerosol water uptake properties collected at Ragged Point, Barbados, during the winter of 2020. The result of this study indicates the importance of small African smoke particles for cloud droplet formation in the tropical North Atlantic and highlights the large spatial and temporal pervasiveness of smoke over the Atlantic Ocean.
Yunfan Liu, Hang Su, Siwen Wang, Chao Wei, Wei Tao, Mira L. Pöhlker, Christopher Pöhlker, Bruna A. Holanda, Ovid O. Krüger, Thorsten Hoffmann, Manfred Wendisch, Paulo Artaxo, Ulrich Pöschl, Meinrat O. Andreae, and Yafang Cheng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 251–272, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-251-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-251-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The origins of the abundant cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) in the upper troposphere (UT) of the Amazon remain unclear. With model developments of new secondary organic aerosol schemes and constrained by observation, we show that strong aerosol nucleation and condensation in the UT is triggered by biogenic organics, and organic condensation is key for UT CCN production. This UT CCN-producing mechanism may prevail over broader vegetation canopies and deserves emphasis in aerosol–climate feedback.
Lukas Eickhoff, Maddalena Bayer-Giraldi, Naama Reicher, Yinon Rudich, and Thomas Koop
Biogeosciences, 20, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The formation of ice is an important process in Earth’s atmosphere, biosphere, and cryosphere, in particular in polar regions. Our research focuses on the influence of the sea ice diatom Fragilariopsis cylindrus and of molecules produced by it upon heterogenous ice nucleation. For that purpose, we studied the freezing of tiny droplets containing the diatoms in a microfluidic device. Together with previous studies, our results suggest a common freezing behaviour of various sea ice diatoms.
Leighton A. Regayre, Lucia Deaconu, Daniel P. Grosvenor, David Sexton, Christopher C. Symonds, Tom Langton, Duncan Watson-Paris, Jane P. Mulcahy, Kirsty J. Pringle, Mark Richardson, Jill S. Johnson, John Rostron, Hamish Gordon, Grenville Lister, Philip Stier, and Ken S. Carslaw
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1330, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1330, 2022
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
We show that potential structural deficiencies in a climate model can be exposed by comprehensively exploring its parametric uncertainty, and that these deficiencies limit how much the model uncertainty can be reduced through observational constraint. Combined consideration of parametric and structural uncertainties provides a future pathway towards building models that have greater physical realism and lower uncertainty.
Guo Li, Hang Su, Meng Li, Uwe Kuhn, Guangjie Zheng, Lei Han, Fengxia Bao, Ulrich Pöschl, and Yafang Cheng
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 6433–6446, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-6433-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-6433-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A large fraction of previous work using dynamic flow chambers was to quantify gas exchange in terms of flux or deposition/emission rate. Here, we extended the usage of this technique to examine uptake kinetics on sample surfaces. The good performance of the chamber system was validated. This technique can be further used for liquid samples and real atmospheric aerosol samples without complicated coating procedures, which complements the existing techniques in atmospheric kinetic studies.
Ville Leinonen, Harri Kokkola, Taina Yli-Juuti, Tero Mielonen, Thomas Kühn, Tuomo Nieminen, Simo Heikkinen, Tuuli Miinalainen, Tommi Bergman, Ken Carslaw, Stefano Decesari, Markus Fiebig, Tareq Hussein, Niku Kivekäs, Radovan Krejci, Markku Kulmala, Ari Leskinen, Andreas Massling, Nikos Mihalopoulos, Jane P. Mulcahy, Steffen M. Noe, Twan van Noije, Fiona M. O'Connor, Colin O'Dowd, Dirk Olivie, Jakob B. Pernov, Tuukka Petäjä, Øyvind Seland, Michael Schulz, Catherine E. Scott, Henrik Skov, Erik Swietlicki, Thomas Tuch, Alfred Wiedensohler, Annele Virtanen, and Santtu Mikkonen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12873–12905, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12873-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12873-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We provide the first extensive comparison of detailed aerosol size distribution trends between in situ observations from Europe and five different earth system models. We investigated aerosol modes (nucleation, Aitken, and accumulation) separately and were able to show the differences between measured and modeled trends and especially their seasonal patterns. The differences in model results are likely due to complex effects of several processes instead of certain specific model features.
Simon F. Reifenberg, Anna Martin, Matthias Kohl, Sara Bacer, Zaneta Hamryszczak, Ivan Tadic, Lenard Röder, Daniel J. Crowley, Horst Fischer, Katharina Kaiser, Johannes Schneider, Raphael Dörich, John N. Crowley, Laura Tomsche, Andreas Marsing, Christiane Voigt, Andreas Zahn, Christopher Pöhlker, Bruna A. Holanda, Ovid Krüger, Ulrich Pöschl, Mira Pöhlker, Patrick Jöckel, Marcel Dorf, Ulrich Schumann, Jonathan Williams, Birger Bohn, Joachim Curtius, Hardwig Harder, Hans Schlager, Jos Lelieveld, and Andrea Pozzer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 10901–10917, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10901-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10901-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this work we use a combination of observational data from an aircraft campaign and model results to investigate the effect of the European lockdown due to COVID-19 in spring 2020. Using model results, we show that the largest relative changes to the atmospheric composition caused by the reduced emissions are located in the upper troposphere around aircraft cruise altitude, while the largest absolute changes are present at the surface.
Amy H. Peace, Ben B. B. Booth, Leighton A. Regayre, Ken S. Carslaw, David M. H. Sexton, Céline J. W. Bonfils, and John W. Rostron
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1215–1232, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1215-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1215-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Anthropogenic aerosol emissions have been linked to driving climate responses such as shifts in the location of tropical rainfall. However, the interaction of aerosols with climate remains one of the most uncertain aspects of climate modelling and limits our ability to predict future climate change. We use an ensemble of climate model simulations to investigate what impact the large uncertainty in how aerosols interact with climate has on predicting future tropical rainfall shifts.
Alexander D. Harrison, Daniel O'Sullivan, Michael P. Adams, Grace C. E. Porter, Edmund Blades, Cherise Brathwaite, Rebecca Chewitt-Lucas, Cassandra Gaston, Rachel Hawker, Ovid O. Krüger, Leslie Neve, Mira L. Pöhlker, Christopher Pöhlker, Ulrich Pöschl, Alberto Sanchez-Marroquin, Andrea Sealy, Peter Sealy, Mark D. Tarn, Shanice Whitehall, James B. McQuaid, Kenneth S. Carslaw, Joseph M. Prospero, and Benjamin J. Murray
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 9663–9680, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9663-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9663-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The formation of ice in clouds fundamentally alters cloud properties; hence it is important we understand the special aerosol particles that can nucleate ice when immersed in supercooled cloud droplets. In this paper we show that African desert dust that has travelled across the Atlantic to the Caribbean nucleates ice much less well than we might have expected.
Marco Wietzoreck, Marios Kyprianou, Benjamin A. Musa Bandowe, Siddika Celik, John N. Crowley, Frank Drewnick, Philipp Eger, Nils Friedrich, Minas Iakovides, Petr Kukučka, Jan Kuta, Barbora Nežiková, Petra Pokorná, Petra Přibylová, Roman Prokeš, Roland Rohloff, Ivan Tadic, Sebastian Tauer, Jake Wilson, Hartwig Harder, Jos Lelieveld, Ulrich Pöschl, Euripides G. Stephanou, and Gerhard Lammel
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8739–8766, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8739-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8739-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A unique dataset of concentrations and sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their alkylated, oxygenated and nitrated derivatives, in total 74 individual species, in the marine atmosphere is presented. Exposure to these substances poses a major health risk. We found very low concentrations over the Arabian Sea, while both local and long-range-transported pollution caused elevated levels over the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Gulf.
Ovid O. Krüger, Bruna A. Holanda, Sourangsu Chowdhury, Andrea Pozzer, David Walter, Christopher Pöhlker, Maria Dolores Andrés Hernández, John P. Burrows, Christiane Voigt, Jos Lelieveld, Johannes Quaas, Ulrich Pöschl, and Mira L. Pöhlker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8683–8699, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8683-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8683-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The abrupt reduction in human activities during the first COVID-19 lockdown created unprecedented atmospheric conditions. We took the opportunity to quantify changes in black carbon (BC) as a major anthropogenic air pollutant. Therefore, we measured BC on board a research aircraft over Europe during the lockdown and compared the results to measurements from 2017. With model simulations we account for different weather conditions and find a lockdown-related decrease in BC of 41 %.
M. Dolores Andrés Hernández, Andreas Hilboll, Helmut Ziereis, Eric Förster, Ovid O. Krüger, Katharina Kaiser, Johannes Schneider, Francesca Barnaba, Mihalis Vrekoussis, Jörg Schmidt, Heidi Huntrieser, Anne-Marlene Blechschmidt, Midhun George, Vladyslav Nenakhov, Theresa Harlass, Bruna A. Holanda, Jennifer Wolf, Lisa Eirenschmalz, Marc Krebsbach, Mira L. Pöhlker, Anna B. Kalisz Hedegaard, Linlu Mei, Klaus Pfeilsticker, Yangzhuoran Liu, Ralf Koppmann, Hans Schlager, Birger Bohn, Ulrich Schumann, Andreas Richter, Benjamin Schreiner, Daniel Sauer, Robert Baumann, Mariano Mertens, Patrick Jöckel, Markus Kilian, Greta Stratmann, Christopher Pöhlker, Monica Campanelli, Marco Pandolfi, Michael Sicard, José L. Gómez-Amo, Manuel Pujadas, Katja Bigge, Flora Kluge, Anja Schwarz, Nikos Daskalakis, David Walter, Andreas Zahn, Ulrich Pöschl, Harald Bönisch, Stephan Borrmann, Ulrich Platt, and John P. Burrows
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5877–5924, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5877-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5877-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
EMeRGe provides a unique set of in situ and remote sensing airborne measurements of trace gases and aerosol particles along selected flight routes in the lower troposphere over Europe. The interpretation uses also complementary collocated ground-based and satellite measurements. The collected data help to improve the current understanding of the complex spatial distribution of trace gases and aerosol particles resulting from mixing, transport, and transformation of pollution plumes over Europe.
Marco A. Franco, Florian Ditas, Leslie A. Kremper, Luiz A. T. Machado, Meinrat O. Andreae, Alessandro Araújo, Henrique M. J. Barbosa, Joel F. de Brito, Samara Carbone, Bruna A. Holanda, Fernando G. Morais, Janaína P. Nascimento, Mira L. Pöhlker, Luciana V. Rizzo, Marta Sá, Jorge Saturno, David Walter, Stefan Wolff, Ulrich Pöschl, Paulo Artaxo, and Christopher Pöhlker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 3469–3492, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3469-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3469-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In Central Amazonia, new particle formation in the planetary boundary layer is rare. Instead, there is the appearance of sub-50 nm aerosols with diameters larger than about 20 nm that eventually grow to cloud condensation nuclei size range. Here, 254 growth events were characterized which have higher predominance in the wet season. About 70 % of them showed direct relation to convective downdrafts, while 30 % occurred partly under clear-sky conditions, evidencing still unknown particle sources.
Amina Khaled, Minghui Zhang, and Barbara Ervens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 1989–2009, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1989-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1989-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Chemical reactions with iron in clouds and aerosol form and cycle reactive oxygen species (ROS). Previous model studies assumed that all cloud droplets (particles) contain iron, while single-particle analyses showed otherwise. By means of a model, we explore the bias in predicted ROS budgets by distributing a given iron mass to either all or only a few droplets (particles). Implications for oxidation potential, radical loss and iron oxidation state are discussed.
Kai Tang, Beatriz Sánchez-Parra, Petya Yordanova, Jörn Wehking, Anna T. Backes, Daniel A. Pickersgill, Stefanie Maier, Jean Sciare, Ulrich Pöschl, Bettina Weber, and Janine Fröhlich-Nowoisky
Biogeosciences, 19, 71–91, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-71-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-71-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Metagenomic sequencing and freezing experiments of aerosol samples collected on Cyprus revealed rain-related short-term changes of bioaerosol and ice nuclei composition. Filtration experiments showed a rain-related enhancement of biological ice nuclei > 5 µm and < 0.1 µm. The observed effects of rainfall on the composition of atmospheric bioaerosols and ice nuclei may influence the hydrological cycle as well as the health effects of air particulate matter (pathogens, allergens).
Luiz A. T. Machado, Marco A. Franco, Leslie A. Kremper, Florian Ditas, Meinrat O. Andreae, Paulo Artaxo, Micael A. Cecchini, Bruna A. Holanda, Mira L. Pöhlker, Ivan Saraiva, Stefan Wolff, Ulrich Pöschl, and Christopher Pöhlker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 18065–18086, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-18065-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-18065-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Several studies evaluate aerosol–cloud interactions, but only a few attempted to describe how clouds modify aerosol properties. This study evaluates the effect of weather events on the particle size distribution at the ATTO, combining remote sensing and in situ data. Ultrafine, Aitken and accumulation particles modes have different behaviors for the diurnal cycle and for rainfall events. This study opens up new scientific questions that need to be pursued in detail in new field campaigns.
Ramon Campos Braga, Barbara Ervens, Daniel Rosenfeld, Meinrat O. Andreae, Jan-David Förster, Daniel Fütterer, Lianet Hernández Pardo, Bruna A. Holanda, Tina Jurkat-Witschas, Ovid O. Krüger, Oliver Lauer, Luiz A. T. Machado, Christopher Pöhlker, Daniel Sauer, Christiane Voigt, Adrian Walser, Manfred Wendisch, Ulrich Pöschl, and Mira L. Pöhlker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 17513–17528, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-17513-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-17513-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Interactions of aerosol particles with clouds represent a large uncertainty in estimates of climate change. Properties of aerosol particles control their ability to act as cloud condensation nuclei. Using aerosol measurements in the Amazon, we performed model studies to compare predicted and measured cloud droplet number concentrations at cloud bases. Our results confirm previous estimates of particle hygroscopicity in this region.
Rachel E. Hawker, Annette K. Miltenberger, Jill S. Johnson, Jonathan M. Wilkinson, Adrian A. Hill, Ben J. Shipway, Paul R. Field, Benjamin J. Murray, and Ken S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 17315–17343, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-17315-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-17315-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We find that ice-nucleating particles (INPs), aerosols that can initiate the freezing of cloud droplets, cause substantial changes to the properties of radiatively important convectively generated anvil cirrus. The number concentration of INPs had a large effect on ice crystal number concentration while the INP temperature dependence controlled ice crystal size and cloud fraction. The results indicate information on INP number and source is necessary for the representation of cloud glaciation.
Najin Kim, Yafang Cheng, Nan Ma, Mira L. Pöhlker, Thomas Klimach, Thomas F. Mentel, Ovid O. Krüger, Ulrich Pöschl, and Hang Su
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 6991–7005, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-6991-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-6991-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A broad supersaturation scanning CCN (BS2-CCN) system, in which particles are exposed to a range of supersaturation simultaneously, can measure a broad range of CCN activity distribution with a high time resolution. We describe how the BS2-CCN system can be effectively calibrated and which factors can affect the calibration curve. Intercomparison experiments between typical DMA-CCN and BS2-CCN measurements to evaluate the BS2-CCN system showed high correlation and good agreement.
Heather Guy, Ian M. Brooks, Ken S. Carslaw, Benjamin J. Murray, Von P. Walden, Matthew D. Shupe, Claire Pettersen, David D. Turner, Christopher J. Cox, William D. Neff, Ralf Bennartz, and Ryan R. Neely III
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 15351–15374, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15351-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15351-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present the first full year of surface aerosol number concentration measurements from the central Greenland Ice Sheet. Aerosol concentrations here have a distinct seasonal cycle from those at lower-altitude Arctic sites, which is driven by large-scale atmospheric circulation. Our results can be used to help understand the role aerosols might play in Greenland surface melt through the modification of cloud properties. This is crucial in a rapidly changing region where observations are sparse.
Mao Xiao, Christopher R. Hoyle, Lubna Dada, Dominik Stolzenburg, Andreas Kürten, Mingyi Wang, Houssni Lamkaddam, Olga Garmash, Bernhard Mentler, Ugo Molteni, Andrea Baccarini, Mario Simon, Xu-Cheng He, Katrianne Lehtipalo, Lauri R. Ahonen, Rima Baalbaki, Paulus S. Bauer, Lisa Beck, David Bell, Federico Bianchi, Sophia Brilke, Dexian Chen, Randall Chiu, António Dias, Jonathan Duplissy, Henning Finkenzeller, Hamish Gordon, Victoria Hofbauer, Changhyuk Kim, Theodore K. Koenig, Janne Lampilahti, Chuan Ping Lee, Zijun Li, Huajun Mai, Vladimir Makhmutov, Hanna E. Manninen, Ruby Marten, Serge Mathot, Roy L. Mauldin, Wei Nie, Antti Onnela, Eva Partoll, Tuukka Petäjä, Joschka Pfeifer, Veronika Pospisilova, Lauriane L. J. Quéléver, Matti Rissanen, Siegfried Schobesberger, Simone Schuchmann, Yuri Stozhkov, Christian Tauber, Yee Jun Tham, António Tomé, Miguel Vazquez-Pufleau, Andrea C. Wagner, Robert Wagner, Yonghong Wang, Lena Weitz, Daniela Wimmer, Yusheng Wu, Chao Yan, Penglin Ye, Qing Ye, Qiaozhi Zha, Xueqin Zhou, Antonio Amorim, Ken Carslaw, Joachim Curtius, Armin Hansel, Rainer Volkamer, Paul M. Winkler, Richard C. Flagan, Markku Kulmala, Douglas R. Worsnop, Jasper Kirkby, Neil M. Donahue, Urs Baltensperger, Imad El Haddad, and Josef Dommen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 14275–14291, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14275-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14275-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Experiments at CLOUD show that in polluted environments new particle formation (NPF) is largely driven by the formation of sulfuric acid–base clusters, stabilized by amines, high ammonia concentrations or lower temperatures. While oxidation products of aromatics can nucleate, they play a minor role in urban NPF. Our experiments span 4 orders of magnitude variation of observed NPF rates in ambient conditions. We provide a framework based on NPF and growth rates to interpret ambient observations.
Ramon Campos Braga, Daniel Rosenfeld, Ovid O. Krüger, Barbara Ervens, Bruna A. Holanda, Manfred Wendisch, Trismono Krisna, Ulrich Pöschl, Meinrat O. Andreae, Christiane Voigt, and Mira L. Pöhlker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 14079–14088, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14079-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14079-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Quantifying the precipitation within clouds is crucial for our understanding of the Earth's hydrological cycle. Using in situ measurements of cloud and rain properties over the Amazon Basin and Atlantic Ocean, we show here a linear relationship between the effective radius (re) and precipitation water content near the tops of convective clouds for different pollution states and temperature levels. Our results emphasize the role of re to determine both initiation and amount of precipitation.
Maria Prass, Meinrat O. Andreae, Alessandro C. de Araùjo, Paulo Artaxo, Florian Ditas, Wolfgang Elbert, Jan-David Förster, Marco Aurélio Franco, Isabella Hrabe de Angelis, Jürgen Kesselmeier, Thomas Klimach, Leslie Ann Kremper, Eckhard Thines, David Walter, Jens Weber, Bettina Weber, Bernhard M. Fuchs, Ulrich Pöschl, and Christopher Pöhlker
Biogeosciences, 18, 4873–4887, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-4873-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-4873-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Bioaerosols in the atmosphere over the Amazon rain forest were analyzed by molecular biological staining and microscopy. Eukaryotic, bacterial, and archaeal aerosols were quantified in time series and altitude profiles which exhibited clear differences in number concentrations and vertical distributions. Our results provide insights into the sources and dispersion of different Amazonian bioaerosol types as a basis for a better understanding of biosphere–atmosphere interactions.
Bjorn Stevens, Sandrine Bony, David Farrell, Felix Ament, Alan Blyth, Christopher Fairall, Johannes Karstensen, Patricia K. Quinn, Sabrina Speich, Claudia Acquistapace, Franziska Aemisegger, Anna Lea Albright, Hugo Bellenger, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Kathy-Ann Caesar, Rebecca Chewitt-Lucas, Gijs de Boer, Julien Delanoë, Leif Denby, Florian Ewald, Benjamin Fildier, Marvin Forde, Geet George, Silke Gross, Martin Hagen, Andrea Hausold, Karen J. Heywood, Lutz Hirsch, Marek Jacob, Friedhelm Jansen, Stefan Kinne, Daniel Klocke, Tobias Kölling, Heike Konow, Marie Lothon, Wiebke Mohr, Ann Kristin Naumann, Louise Nuijens, Léa Olivier, Robert Pincus, Mira Pöhlker, Gilles Reverdin, Gregory Roberts, Sabrina Schnitt, Hauke Schulz, A. Pier Siebesma, Claudia Christine Stephan, Peter Sullivan, Ludovic Touzé-Peiffer, Jessica Vial, Raphaela Vogel, Paquita Zuidema, Nicola Alexander, Lyndon Alves, Sophian Arixi, Hamish Asmath, Gholamhossein Bagheri, Katharina Baier, Adriana Bailey, Dariusz Baranowski, Alexandre Baron, Sébastien Barrau, Paul A. Barrett, Frédéric Batier, Andreas Behrendt, Arne Bendinger, Florent Beucher, Sebastien Bigorre, Edmund Blades, Peter Blossey, Olivier Bock, Steven Böing, Pierre Bosser, Denis Bourras, Pascale Bouruet-Aubertot, Keith Bower, Pierre Branellec, Hubert Branger, Michal Brennek, Alan Brewer, Pierre-Etienne Brilouet, Björn Brügmann, Stefan A. Buehler, Elmo Burke, Ralph Burton, Radiance Calmer, Jean-Christophe Canonici, Xavier Carton, Gregory Cato Jr., Jude Andre Charles, Patrick Chazette, Yanxu Chen, Michal T. Chilinski, Thomas Choularton, Patrick Chuang, Shamal Clarke, Hugh Coe, Céline Cornet, Pierre Coutris, Fleur Couvreux, Susanne Crewell, Timothy Cronin, Zhiqiang Cui, Yannis Cuypers, Alton Daley, Gillian M. Damerell, Thibaut Dauhut, Hartwig Deneke, Jean-Philippe Desbios, Steffen Dörner, Sebastian Donner, Vincent Douet, Kyla Drushka, Marina Dütsch, André Ehrlich, Kerry Emanuel, Alexandros Emmanouilidis, Jean-Claude Etienne, Sheryl Etienne-Leblanc, Ghislain Faure, Graham Feingold, Luca Ferrero, Andreas Fix, Cyrille Flamant, Piotr Jacek Flatau, Gregory R. Foltz, Linda Forster, Iulian Furtuna, Alan Gadian, Joseph Galewsky, Martin Gallagher, Peter Gallimore, Cassandra Gaston, Chelle Gentemann, Nicolas Geyskens, Andreas Giez, John Gollop, Isabelle Gouirand, Christophe Gourbeyre, Dörte de Graaf, Geiske E. de Groot, Robert Grosz, Johannes Güttler, Manuel Gutleben, Kashawn Hall, George Harris, Kevin C. Helfer, Dean Henze, Calvert Herbert, Bruna Holanda, Antonio Ibanez-Landeta, Janet Intrieri, Suneil Iyer, Fabrice Julien, Heike Kalesse, Jan Kazil, Alexander Kellman, Abiel T. Kidane, Ulrike Kirchner, Marcus Klingebiel, Mareike Körner, Leslie Ann Kremper, Jan Kretzschmar, Ovid Krüger, Wojciech Kumala, Armin Kurz, Pierre L'Hégaret, Matthieu Labaste, Tom Lachlan-Cope, Arlene Laing, Peter Landschützer, Theresa Lang, Diego Lange, Ingo Lange, Clément Laplace, Gauke Lavik, Rémi Laxenaire, Caroline Le Bihan, Mason Leandro, Nathalie Lefevre, Marius Lena, Donald Lenschow, Qiang Li, Gary Lloyd, Sebastian Los, Niccolò Losi, Oscar Lovell, Christopher Luneau, Przemyslaw Makuch, Szymon Malinowski, Gaston Manta, Eleni Marinou, Nicholas Marsden, Sebastien Masson, Nicolas Maury, Bernhard Mayer, Margarette Mayers-Als, Christophe Mazel, Wayne McGeary, James C. McWilliams, Mario Mech, Melina Mehlmann, Agostino Niyonkuru Meroni, Theresa Mieslinger, Andreas Minikin, Peter Minnett, Gregor Möller, Yanmichel Morfa Avalos, Caroline Muller, Ionela Musat, Anna Napoli, Almuth Neuberger, Christophe Noisel, David Noone, Freja Nordsiek, Jakub L. Nowak, Lothar Oswald, Douglas J. Parker, Carolyn Peck, Renaud Person, Miriam Philippi, Albert Plueddemann, Christopher Pöhlker, Veronika Pörtge, Ulrich Pöschl, Lawrence Pologne, Michał Posyniak, Marc Prange, Estefanía Quiñones Meléndez, Jule Radtke, Karim Ramage, Jens Reimann, Lionel Renault, Klaus Reus, Ashford Reyes, Joachim Ribbe, Maximilian Ringel, Markus Ritschel, Cesar B. Rocha, Nicolas Rochetin, Johannes Röttenbacher, Callum Rollo, Haley Royer, Pauline Sadoulet, Leo Saffin, Sanola Sandiford, Irina Sandu, Michael Schäfer, Vera Schemann, Imke Schirmacher, Oliver Schlenczek, Jerome Schmidt, Marcel Schröder, Alfons Schwarzenboeck, Andrea Sealy, Christoph J. Senff, Ilya Serikov, Samkeyat Shohan, Elizabeth Siddle, Alexander Smirnov, Florian Späth, Branden Spooner, M. Katharina Stolla, Wojciech Szkółka, Simon P. de Szoeke, Stéphane Tarot, Eleni Tetoni, Elizabeth Thompson, Jim Thomson, Lorenzo Tomassini, Julien Totems, Alma Anna Ubele, Leonie Villiger, Jan von Arx, Thomas Wagner, Andi Walther, Ben Webber, Manfred Wendisch, Shanice Whitehall, Anton Wiltshire, Allison A. Wing, Martin Wirth, Jonathan Wiskandt, Kevin Wolf, Ludwig Worbes, Ethan Wright, Volker Wulfmeyer, Shanea Young, Chidong Zhang, Dongxiao Zhang, Florian Ziemen, Tobias Zinner, and Martin Zöger
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4067–4119, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4067-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4067-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The EUREC4A field campaign, designed to test hypothesized mechanisms by which clouds respond to warming and benchmark next-generation Earth-system models, is presented. EUREC4A comprised roughly 5 weeks of measurements in the downstream winter trades of the North Atlantic – eastward and southeastward of Barbados. It was the first campaign that attempted to characterize the full range of processes and scales influencing trade wind clouds.
Mira L. Pöhlker, Minghui Zhang, Ramon Campos Braga, Ovid O. Krüger, Ulrich Pöschl, and Barbara Ervens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 11723–11740, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-11723-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-11723-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds cool our atmosphere. The role of small aerosol particles in affecting them represents one of the largest uncertainties in current estimates of climate change. Traditionally it is assumed that cloud droplets only form particles of diameters ~ 100 nm (
accumulation mode). Previous studies suggest that this can also occur in smaller particles (
Aitken mode). Our study provides a general framework to estimate under which aerosol and cloud conditions Aitken mode particles affect clouds.
Haijie Tong, Fobang Liu, Alexander Filippi, Jake Wilson, Andrea M. Arangio, Yun Zhang, Siyao Yue, Steven Lelieveld, Fangxia Shen, Helmi-Marja K. Keskinen, Jing Li, Haoxuan Chen, Ting Zhang, Thorsten Hoffmann, Pingqing Fu, William H. Brune, Tuukka Petäjä, Markku Kulmala, Maosheng Yao, Thomas Berkemeier, Manabu Shiraiwa, and Ulrich Pöschl
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10439–10455, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10439-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10439-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We measured radical yields of aqueous PM2.5 extracts and found lower yields at higher concentrations of PM2.5. Abundances of water-soluble transition metals and aromatics in PM2.5 were positively correlated with the relative fraction of •OH but negatively correlated with the relative fraction of C-centered radicals among detected radicals. Composition-dependent reactive species yields may explain differences in the reactivity and health effects of PM2.5 in clean versus polluted air.
Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Yves Balkanski, Samuel Albani, Tommi Bergman, Ken Carslaw, Anne Cozic, Chris Dearden, Beatrice Marticorena, Martine Michou, Twan van Noije, Pierre Nabat, Fiona M. O'Connor, Dirk Olivié, Joseph M. Prospero, Philippe Le Sager, Michael Schulz, and Catherine Scott
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10295–10335, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10295-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10295-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Thousands of tons of dust are emitted into the atmosphere every year, producing important impacts on the Earth system. However, current global climate models are not yet able to reproduce dust emissions, transport and depositions with the desirable accuracy. Our study analyses five different Earth system models to report aspects to be improved to reproduce better available observations, increase the consistency between models and therefore decrease the current uncertainties.
Eugene F. Mikhailov, Mira L. Pöhlker, Kathrin Reinmuth-Selzle, Sergey S. Vlasenko, Ovid O. Krüger, Janine Fröhlich-Nowoisky, Christopher Pöhlker, Olga A. Ivanova, Alexey A. Kiselev, Leslie A. Kremper, and Ulrich Pöschl
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6999–7022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6999-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6999-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Subpollen particles are a relatively new subset of atmospheric aerosol particles. When pollen grains rupture, they release cytoplasmic fragments known as subpollen particles (SPPs). We found that SPPs, containing a broad spectrum of biopolymers and hydrocarbons, exhibit abnormally high water uptake. This effect may influence the life cycle of SPPs and the related direct and indirect impacts on radiation budget as well as reinforce their allergic potential.
Patricia K. Quinn, Elizabeth J. Thompson, Derek J. Coffman, Sunil Baidar, Ludovic Bariteau, Timothy S. Bates, Sebastien Bigorre, Alan Brewer, Gijs de Boer, Simon P. de Szoeke, Kyla Drushka, Gregory R. Foltz, Janet Intrieri, Suneil Iyer, Chris W. Fairall, Cassandra J. Gaston, Friedhelm Jansen, James E. Johnson, Ovid O. Krüger, Richard D. Marchbanks, Kenneth P. Moran, David Noone, Sergio Pezoa, Robert Pincus, Albert J. Plueddemann, Mira L. Pöhlker, Ulrich Pöschl, Estefania Quinones Melendez, Haley M. Royer, Malgorzata Szczodrak, Jim Thomson, Lucia M. Upchurch, Chidong Zhang, Dongxiao Zhang, and Paquita Zuidema
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 1759–1790, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1759-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1759-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
ATOMIC took place in the northwestern tropical Atlantic during January and February of 2020 to gather information on shallow atmospheric convection, the effects of aerosols and clouds on the ocean surface energy budget, and mesoscale oceanic processes. Measurements made from the NOAA RV Ronald H. Brown and assets it deployed (instrumented mooring and uncrewed seagoing vehicles) are described herein to advance widespread use of the data by the ATOMIC and broader research communities.
Jake Wilson, Ulrich Pöschl, Manabu Shiraiwa, and Thomas Berkemeier
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6175–6198, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6175-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6175-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This work explores the gas–particle partitioning of PAHs on soot with a kinetic model. We show that the equilibration timescale depends on PAH molecular structure, temperature, and particle number concentration. We explore scenarios in which the particulate fraction is perturbed from equilibrium by chemical loss and discuss implications for chemical transport models that assume instantaneous equilibration at each model time step.
Rachel E. Hawker, Annette K. Miltenberger, Jonathan M. Wilkinson, Adrian A. Hill, Ben J. Shipway, Zhiqiang Cui, Richard J. Cotton, Ken S. Carslaw, Paul R. Field, and Benjamin J. Murray
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5439–5461, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5439-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5439-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The impact of aerosols on clouds is a large source of uncertainty for future climate projections. Our results show that the radiative properties of a complex convective cloud field in the Saharan outflow region are sensitive to the temperature dependence of ice-nucleating particle concentrations. This means that differences in the aerosol source or composition, for the same aerosol size distribution, can cause differences in the outgoing radiation from regions dominated by tropical convection.
Ananth Ranjithkumar, Hamish Gordon, Christina Williamson, Andrew Rollins, Kirsty Pringle, Agnieszka Kupc, Nathan Luke Abraham, Charles Brock, and Ken Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4979–5014, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4979-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4979-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The effect aerosols have on climate can be better understood by studying their vertical and spatial distribution throughout the atmosphere. We use observation data from the ATom campaign and evaluate the vertical profile of aerosol number concentration, sulfur dioxide and condensation sink using the UKESM (UK Earth System Model). We identify uncertainties in key atmospheric processes that help improve their theoretical representation in global climate models.
Minghui Zhang, Amina Khaled, Pierre Amato, Anne-Marie Delort, and Barbara Ervens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3699–3724, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3699-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3699-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Although primary biological aerosol particles (PBAPs, bioaerosols) represent a small fraction of total atmospheric aerosol burden, they might affect climate and public health. We summarize which PBAP properties are important to affect their inclusion in clouds and interaction with light and might also affect their residence time and transport in the atmosphere. Our study highlights that not only chemical and physical but also biological processes can modify these physicochemical properties.
Amina Khaled, Minghui Zhang, Pierre Amato, Anne-Marie Delort, and Barbara Ervens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3123–3141, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3123-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3123-2021, 2021
Kamalika Sengupta, Kirsty Pringle, Jill S. Johnson, Carly Reddington, Jo Browse, Catherine E. Scott, and Ken Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 2693–2723, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2693-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2693-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Global models consistently underestimate atmospheric secondary organic aerosol (SOA), which has significant climatic implications. We use a perturbed parameter model ensemble and ground-based observations to reduce the uncertainty in modelling SOA formation from oxidation of volatile organic compounds. We identify plausible parameter spaces for the yields of extremely low-volatility, low-volatility, and semi-volatile organic compounds based on model–observation match for three key model outputs.
Saly Jaber, Muriel Joly, Maxence Brissy, Martin Leremboure, Amina Khaled, Barbara Ervens, and Anne-Marie Delort
Biogeosciences, 18, 1067–1080, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-1067-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-1067-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Our study is of interest to atmospheric scientists and environmental microbiologists, as we show that clouds can be considered a medium where bacteria efficiently degrade and transform amino acids, in competition with chemical processes. As current atmospheric multiphase models are restricted to chemical degradation of organic compounds, our conclusions motivate further model development.
Manabu Shiraiwa and Ulrich Pöschl
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1565–1580, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1565-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1565-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Mass accommodation is a crucial process in secondary organic aerosol partitioning that depends on volatility, diffusivity, reactivity, and particle penetration depth of the chemical species involved. For efficient kinetic modeling, we introduce an effective mass accommodation coefficient that accounts for the above influencing factors, can be applied in the common Fuchs–Sutugin approximation, and helps to resolve inconsistencies and shortcomings of earlier experimental and model investigations.
Chuchu Chen, Xiaoxiang Wang, Kurt Binder, Mohammad Mehdi Ghahremanpour, David van der Spoel, Ulrich Pöschl, Hang Su, and Yafang Cheng
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2020-1329, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2020-1329, 2021
Publication in ACP not foreseen
Short summary
Short summary
Size dependence of succinic acid solvation in the nanoparticles is investigated based on the molecular dynamics (MD) simulation and energetic analysis. The results show a stronger surface preference and a weaker internal bulk volume solvation of succinic acid in the smaller droplets, which may explain the previously observed size-dependent phase-state of aerosol nanoparticles containing organic molecules, fundamentally promoting a better understanding of atmospheric aerosols.
Jim M. Haywood, Steven J. Abel, Paul A. Barrett, Nicolas Bellouin, Alan Blyth, Keith N. Bower, Melissa Brooks, Ken Carslaw, Haochi Che, Hugh Coe, Michael I. Cotterell, Ian Crawford, Zhiqiang Cui, Nicholas Davies, Beth Dingley, Paul Field, Paola Formenti, Hamish Gordon, Martin de Graaf, Ross Herbert, Ben Johnson, Anthony C. Jones, Justin M. Langridge, Florent Malavelle, Daniel G. Partridge, Fanny Peers, Jens Redemann, Philip Stier, Kate Szpek, Jonathan W. Taylor, Duncan Watson-Parris, Robert Wood, Huihui Wu, and Paquita Zuidema
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1049–1084, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1049-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1049-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Every year, the seasonal cycle of biomass burning from agricultural practices in Africa creates a huge plume of smoke that travels many thousands of kilometres over the Atlantic Ocean. This study provides an overview of a measurement campaign called the cloud–aerosol–radiation interaction and forcing for year 2017 (CLARIFY-2017) and documents the rationale, deployment strategy, observations, and key results from the campaign which utilized the heavily equipped FAAM atmospheric research aircraft.
Benjamin J. Murray, Kenneth S. Carslaw, and Paul R. Field
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 665–679, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-665-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-665-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The balance between the amounts of ice and supercooled water in clouds over the world's oceans strongly influences how much these clouds can dampen or amplify global warming. Aerosol particles which catalyse ice formation can dramatically reduce the amount of supercooled water in clouds; hence we argue that we need a concerted effort to improve our understanding of these ice-nucleating particles if we are to improve our predictions of climate change.
Jane P. Mulcahy, Colin Johnson, Colin G. Jones, Adam C. Povey, Catherine E. Scott, Alistair Sellar, Steven T. Turnock, Matthew T. Woodhouse, Nathan Luke Abraham, Martin B. Andrews, Nicolas Bellouin, Jo Browse, Ken S. Carslaw, Mohit Dalvi, Gerd A. Folberth, Matthew Glover, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Catherine Hardacre, Richard Hill, Ben Johnson, Andy Jones, Zak Kipling, Graham Mann, James Mollard, Fiona M. O'Connor, Julien Palmiéri, Carly Reddington, Steven T. Rumbold, Mark Richardson, Nick A. J. Schutgens, Philip Stier, Marc Stringer, Yongming Tang, Jeremy Walton, Stephanie Woodward, and Andrew Yool
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6383–6423, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6383-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6383-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols are an important component of the Earth system. Here, we comprehensively document and evaluate the aerosol schemes as implemented in the physical and Earth system models, HadGEM3-GC3.1 and UKESM1. This study provides a useful characterisation of the aerosol climatology in both models, facilitating the understanding of the numerous aerosol–climate interaction studies that will be conducted for CMIP6 and beyond.
Daniel P. Grosvenor and Kenneth S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 15681–15724, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15681-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15681-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Particles arising from human activity interact with clouds and affect how much of the Sun's energy is reflected away. Lack of understanding about how to represent this in models leads to large uncertainties in climate predictions. We quantify cloud responses to particles in the latest UK Met Office climate model over the North Atlantic Ocean, showing that, in contrast to suggestions elsewhere, increases in cloud coverage and thickness are important over large areas.
Guo Li, Hang Su, Nan Ma, Guangjie Zheng, Uwe Kuhn, Meng Li, Thomas Klimach, Ulrich Pöschl, and Yafang Cheng
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 6053–6065, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6053-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6053-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol acidity plays an important role in regulating the chemistry, health, and ecological effect of aerosol particles. However, a direct measurement of aerosol pH is very challenging because of its fast transition and equilibrium with adjacent environments. Therefore, most early studies have to use modeled pH, resulting in intensive debates about model uncertainties. Here we developed an optimized approach to measure aerosol pH by using pH-indicator papers combined with RGB-based colorimetry.
Sandip S. Dhomse, Graham W. Mann, Juan Carlos Antuña Marrero, Sarah E. Shallcross, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Kenneth S. Carslaw, Lauren Marshall, N. Luke Abraham, and Colin E. Johnson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13627–13654, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13627-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13627-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We confirm downward adjustment of SO2 emission to simulate the Pinatubo aerosol cloud with aerosol microphysics models. Similar adjustment is also needed to simulate the El Chichón and Agung volcanic cloud, indicating potential missing removal or vertical redistribution process in models. Important inhomogeneities in the CMIP6 forcing datasets after Agung and El Chichón eruptions are difficult to reconcile. Quasi-biennial oscillation plays an important role in modifying stratospheric warming.
Lixia Liu, Yafang Cheng, Siwen Wang, Chao Wei, Mira L. Pöhlker, Christopher Pöhlker, Paulo Artaxo, Manish Shrivastava, Meinrat O. Andreae, Ulrich Pöschl, and Hang Su
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13283–13301, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13283-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13283-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This modeling paper reveals how aerosol–cloud interactions (ACIs) and aerosol–radiation interactions (ARIs) induced by biomass burning (BB) aerosols act oppositely on radiation, cloud, and precipitation in the Amazon during the dry season. The varying relative significance of ACIs and ARIs with BB aerosol concentration leads to a nonlinear dependence of the total climate response on BB aerosol loading and features the growing importance of ARIs at high aerosol loading.
Cited articles
Abbott, A.: Strife at eLife: inside a journal's quest to upend science publishing, Nature, 615, 780–781, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00831-6, 2023. a
Abdill, R. J. and Blekhman, R.: Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints, eLife, 8, e45133, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45133, 2019. a
Abdin, A. Y., Nasim, M. J., Ney, Y., and Jacob, C.: The pioneering role of Sci in post publication public peer review (P4R), Publications, 9, 13, https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010013, 2021. a
ACP author guidelines: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/policies/guidelines_for_authors.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
ACP Crutzen Publication Award: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/awards/paul-crutzen-publication-award.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
ACP Editor Guidelines: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/policies/guidelines_for_editors.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
ACP Outstanding Editor Award: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/awards/outstanding-editor-award.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
ACP Outstanding Referee Award: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/awards/outstanding-referee-awards.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
ACP review criteria: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/peer_review/review_criteria.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
ACP subject areas: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/about/subject_areas.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Aczel, B., Barwich, A.-S., Diekman, A. B., Fishbach, A., Goldstone, R. L., Gomez, P., Gundersen, O. E., von Hippel, P. T., Holcombe, A. O., Lewandowsky, S., Nozari, N., Pestilli, F., and Ioannidis, J. P. A.: The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 122, e2401232121, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401232121, 2025. a
Albarède, F.: AGU Announces Open Review Experiment, Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90, 276, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009EO320005, 2009. a, b
Altmetric: https://www.altmetric.com/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2023. a
Alves, T., Erdmann, C., Esten, E., Klein, M., Kramer, B., Levchencko, M., Nip, D., Parkin, M., and Puebla, I.: Mapping the preprint review metadata transfer workflows, MetArxiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/yu4sm, 2024. a
Antonoyiannakis, M.: Impact factor volatility due to a single paper: A comprehensive analysis, Quantitative Science Studies, 1, 639–663, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00037, 2020. a
arXiv: https://arxiv.org/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
ASAPbio: https://asapbio.org/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2017. a
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Avissar-Whiting, M., Belliard, F., Bertozzi, S. M., Brand, A., Brown, K., Clément-Stoneham, G., Dawson, S., Dey, G., Ecer, D., Edmunds, S. C., Farley, A., Fischer, T. D., Franko, M., Fraser, J. S., Funk, K., Ganier, C., Harrison, M., Hatch, A., Hazlett, H., Hindle, S., Hook, D. W., Hurst, P., Kamoun, S., Kiley, R., Lacy, M. M., LaFlamme, M., Lawrence, R., Lemberger, T., Leptin, M., Lumb, E., MacCallum, C. J., Marcum, C. S., Marinello, G., Mendonça, A., Monaco, S., Neves, K., Pattinson, D., Polka, J. K., Puebla, I., Rittman, M., Royle, S. J., Saderi, D., Sever, R., Shearer, K., Spiro, J. E., Stern, B., Taraborelli, D., Vale, R., Vasquez, C. G., Waltman, L., Watt, F. M., Weinberg, Z. Y., and Williams, M.: Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science, PLOS Biology, 22, e3002502, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502, 2024. a
AWPE: Abstracts of Working Papers in Economics, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/abstracts-of-working-papers-in-economics (last access: 28 September 2025), 2004. a
B17 Conference: 17th Berlin Open Access Conference, 5–6 February 2025, Berlin, https://oa2020.org/b17-conference/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2025. a
Banks, M.: Transparent peer review trialled by IOP Publishing, Physics World, 32, 11, https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/32/11/13, 2019. a
Barbour, G., Carter, C., Coates, J., Cobey, K. D., Corker, K. S., Gadd, E., Kramer, B., Lawrence, R., Méndez, E., Neylon, C., Pölönen, J., Stern, B., and Waltman, L.: Criteria for Bibliographic Databases in a Well-Functioning Scholarly Communication and Research Assessment Ecosystem, https://upstream.force11.org/criteria-for-bibliographic-databases/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2025. a
Basilio, H.: Raising the visibility of Latin American science, Eos, 104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EO230050, 2023. a
Beall, J.: Predatory journals, peer review, and education research, New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 29, 54–58, https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20173, 2017. a
Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm (last access: 28 September 2025), 2003. a
Binfield, P.: PeerJ – more than just a publisher, Insights: the UKSG journal, 27, 75–81, https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.130, 2014. a
Björk, B.-C.: Acceptance rates of scholarly peer-reviewed journals: A literature survey, Profesional de la información, Artículos de investigación/Research articles, 28, https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.jul.07, 2019. a, b
Björk, B.-C. and Solomon, D.: The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, J. Informetr., 7, 914–923, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001, 2013. a
Björk, B.-C. and Solomon, D.: Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality, Scientometrics, 103, 373–385, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1556-z, 2015. a
Bodenschatz, E.: The new journal of physics as an example of open access journals, in: Open Access – Opportunities and Challenges. A Handbook., edited by Directorate-General for Research, 139, UNESCO, Brussels, ISBN 978-92-79-06665-8, https://doi.org/10.2777/93994, 2008. a
Boiani, M. and Duncan, F. E.: A new initiative for 2024: increasing peer review transparency at MHR, Mol. Hum. Reprod., 30, gaae014, https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gaae014, 2024. a
Bolam, J. P. and Foxe, J. J.: Transparent review at the European Journal of Neuroscience: experiences one year on, Eur. J. Neurosci., 46, 2647, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13762, 2017. a
Boldt, A.: Extending ArXiv.org to Achieve Open Peer Review and Publishing, J. Scholarly Publ., 42, 238–242, https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.42.2.238, 2011. a
Bornmann, L. and Haunschild, R.: The interest of the scientific community in expert opinions from journal peer review procedures, Scientometrics, 102, 2187–2188, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1514-1, 2015. a, b, c
Bornmann, L. and Haunschild, R.: Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator, J. Informetr., 10, 875–887, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.002, 2016. a
Bornmann, L. and Marx, W.: The journal Impact Factor and alternative metrics, EMBO reports, 17, 1094–1097, https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201642823, 2016. a
Bornmann, L., Marx, W., Schier, H., Thor, A., and Daniel, H.-D.: From black box to white box at open access journals: predictive validity of manuscript reviewing and editorial decisions at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Res. Evaluat., 19, 105–118, https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210X510089, 2010. a
Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., and Daniel, H.-D.: Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? A study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec., 62, 61–71, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21418, 2011. a, b
Bornmann, L., Wolf, M., and Daniel, H.-D.: Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use?, Scientometrics, 91, 843–856, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0569-5, 2012. a, b
Borrego, Á.: Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review, Learn. Publ., 36, 359–378, https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1558, 2023. a, b
Borrego, Á., Anglada, L., and Abadal, E.: Transformative agreements: Do they pave the way to open access?, Learn. Publ., 34, 216–232, https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1347, 2021. a
Brainard, J.: Researchers push preprint reviews to improve scientific communications, Science, 378, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg2283, 2022. a
Brainard, J.: Fast-growing open-access journals lose impact factors, Science, 379, 1283–1284, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi0092, 2023. a, b, c
Brainard, J.: Open-access journal elife will lose its “impact factor” over controversial publishing model, Science, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zycyo78, 2024a. a, b
Brainard, J.: Web of Science index puts eLife ‘on hold' because of its radical publishing model, Science, Scienceins, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zjs3ept, 2024b. a
Brainard, J.: Preprints often make news. Many people don’t know what they are, Science, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zuo3lr2, 2025a. a
Brainard, J.: Many scientific societies are losing publishing revenue, Science, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adz6859, 2025b. a
Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., López-Iñesta, E., Mehmani, B., and Squazzoni, F.: The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals, Nat. Commun., 10, 322, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2, 2019. a
Briscoe, J. and Brown, K.: Constructive Critics: Development's approach to peer review, Development, 151, dev204523, https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.204523, 2024. a
Buckingham Shum, S. and Sumner, T.: JIME: an interactive journal for interactive media, Learn. Publ., 14, 273–285, https://doi.org/10.1087/095315101753141374, 2001. a, b
Budapest Open Access Initiative: https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2002. a
Butler, L.-A., Matthias, L., Simard, M.-A., Mongeon, P., and Haustein, S.: The oligopoly's shift to open access. How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges, Quantitative Science Studies, 4, 778–799, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272, 2023. a, b
Can, E., Ferus, A., Gumpenberger, C., Höbling, L., Holzner, B., Pacher, A., Reitbrecht, C., Sams, B., and Schilhan, L.: The visibility of open access publications – Results of sub-project 5 of Austrian Transition to Open Access 2 (AT2OA2), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14413232, 2024. a
Carlson, D. and Oda, T.: Editorial: Data publication – ESSD goals, practices and recommendations, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2275–2278, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2275-2018, 2018. a, b
Cartlidge, E.: Peer review steps out of the shadows, Physics World, 20, 29–30, https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/20/1/32, 2007. a
Casadevall, A. and Fang, F. C.: Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania., mBio, 5, e00064–14, https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00064-14, 2014. a
Caux, J.-S.: Redressing the inverted pyramid of scientific publishing, Europhysics News, 48, 25–28, https://doi.org/10.1051/epn/2017503, 2017. a
CCSD: https://www.episciences.org/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2017. a
Chen, B. K., Custis, T., Monteggia, L. M., and George, T. P.: Effects of open access publishing on article metrics in Neuropsychopharmacology, Neuropsychopharmacology, 49, 757–763, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-024-01796-4, 2024. a, b
Cheng, X., Wang, H., Tang, L., Jiang, W., Zhou, M., and Wang, G.: Open peer review correlates with altmetrics but not with citations: Evidence from Nature Communications and PLoS One, J. Informetr., 18, 101540, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101540, 2024. a
Clarivate: Editorial selection process, https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/web-of-science-core-collection/editorial-selection-process/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
Clayson, P. E., Baldwin, S. A., and Larson, M. J.: The open access advantage for studies of human electrophysiology: Impact on citations and Altmetrics, Int. J. Psychophysiol., 164, 103–111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.03.006, 2021. a
cOAlitionS: https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Towards_Responsible_Publishing_web.pdf (last access: 28 September 2025), 2023. a
Cobb, M.: The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s, PLOS Biology, 15, e2003995, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003995, 2017. a
Cockerill, M.: BioMed Central acquired by Springer Science+Business Media, https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2008/10/21/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2008. a
Columbia University: https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/new-journal-seeks-reduce-bias-scientific-publishing (last access: 28 September 2025), 2022. a
commitment statement by the Coalition on Publishing Data in the Earth and Space Sciences (COPDESS), https://copdess.org/statement-of-commitment/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2014. a
Copernicus News: https://www.copernicus.org/news_and_press/2023-06-27_referee-nomination-improved.html (last access: 28 September 2025), 2023. a
Copernicus Publications: https://www.copernicus.org/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Cosgrove, A. and Flintoft, L.: Trialing transparent peer review, Genome Biology, 18, 173, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1314-z, 2017. a, b
CP Editor Award: https://www.climate-of-the-past.net/about/news_and_press/2024-04-26_cp-referee-and-editor-awards-2024.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
CP Referee Award: https://www.climate-of-the-past.net/about/news_and_press/2024-04-26_cp-referee-and-editor-awards-2024.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode, last access: 28 September 2025. a
de Vries, S.: The fair open access breakdown of publication services and fees, https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/132/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2019. a
Dedej, S., Hanson, S., and Ricci, M.: How AGU publications is supporting the next generation of reviewers, Eos, 104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EO235030, 2023. a
Drury, L.: The normalization of preprints, Journal of Information and Knowledge, 59, 79–85, https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2022/v59i2/169462, 2022. a
Dér, A.: Financial flows and cost scenarios for an open future – Max Planck Digital Library Case Study, https://oa2020.org/wp-content/uploads/B17_Financial_flows_MPDL.pdf (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
EG index terms: https://encyclopedia-of-geosciences.net/encyclopedia_index.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
EG topics: https://encyclopedia-of-geosciences.net/encyclopedia_topics.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
EGU conferences: https://www.egusphere.net/conferences/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
EGU General Assembly: https://www.egu.eu/meetings/general-assembly/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
EGU journal editor obligations: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/policies/obligations_for_editors.html, last access: 28 September 2025.
EGU News: https://www.egu.eu/media/filer_public/41/f1/41f1b237-9601-49a1-a43f-faf82d362115/discussionpapers.pdf (last access: 28 September 2025), 2010. a
EGU News: EGU now a signatory to Open Access 2020, a new initiative to boost open access, https://www.egu.eu/news/228/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2020. a
EGU News: Statement on the use of AI-based tools for the presentation and publication of research results in Earth, Planetary, and Space Science, https://www.egu.eu/news/1031/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024a. a
EGUsphere preprint moderators: https://www.egusphere.net/preprints/preprint_moderators.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
EGUsphere topics: https://www.egusphere.net/about/egusphere_topics.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Eisen, M. B., Akhmanova, A., Behrens, T. E., Harper, D. M., Weigel, D., and Zaidi, M.: Implementing a “publish, then review” model of publishing, eLife, 9, e64910, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64910, 2020. a, b
Eisen, M. B., Akhmanova, A., Behrens, T. E., Diedrichsen, J., Harper, D. M., Iordanova, M. D., Weigel, D., and Zaidi, M.: Peer review without gatekeeping, eLife, 11, e83889, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83889, 2022. a
eLife: Changes to eLife's indexing status in Web of Science and Scopus, https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/ae620829/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
eLife: https://elifesciences.org/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
eLife: The eLife Model: Two-year update, https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/8947f033/the-elife-model-two-year-update (last access: 28 September 2025), 2025. a
Elm, J., Czitrovszky, A., Held, A., Virtanen, A., Kiendler-Scharr, A., Murray, B. J., McCluskey, D., Contini, D., Broday, D., Goudeli, E., Timonen, H., Rosell-Llompart, J., Castillo, J. L., Diapouli, E., Viana, M., Messing, M. E., Kulmala, M., Zíková, N., and Schmitt, S. H.: Editorial: Aerosol Research – a new diamond open-access journal covering the breadth of aerosol science and technology, Aerosol Research, 1, 13–16, https://doi.org/10.5194/ar-1-13-2023, 2023. a
Else, H.: eLife won't reject papers once they are under review – what researchers think, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03534-6, 2022. a
Enabling FAIR Data Commitment Statement in the Earth, Space, and Environmental Sciences: https://copdess.org/enabling-fair-data-project/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2018. a
Ervens, B.: Data EGU Journals, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14713159, 2025. a
ESAC registry: https://esac-initiative.org/about/transformative-agreements/agreement-registry/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
ESSOAr: https://essopenarchive.org/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2022. a
ETAI: Electronic transactions on artificial intelligence, https://ep.liu.se/ej/etai/about/index.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
European Geophysical Society: https://www.egu.eu/about/historical-highlights/egs/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
European Geosciences Union (EGU): https://www.egu.eu/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Eysenbach, G.: The open access advantage, J. Med. Internet Res., 8, e8, https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8.2.e8, 2006. a, b
Eysenbach, G.: Celebrating 20 years of open access and innovation at JMIR Publications, J. Med. Internet Res., 21, e17578, https://doi.org/10.2196/17578, 2019. a, b
F1000: https://www.f1000.com/editorial-led-peer-reviewer-selection/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
F1000 APCs: https://f1000research.com/for-authors/article-processing-charges, last access: 28 September 2025. a
F1000 Research: https://f1000research.com/about, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., and Casadevall, A.: Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 17028–17033, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109, 2012. a
Faraday Discussions: https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/faraday-discussions/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Fiala, C. and Diamandis, E. P.: The emerging landscape of scientific publishing, Clinical Biochemistry, 50, 651–655, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.04.009, 2017. a
Fleerackers, A., Chtena, N., Pinfield, S., Alperin, J. P., Barata, G., Oliveira, M., and Peters, I.: Making science public: a review of journalists' use of Open Access research, F1000Research, 12, https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133710.2, 2024. a
FORCE11: The Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship, https://force11.org/info/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2011. a
Fox, C. W.: Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review., Proceedings. Biological sciences, 288, 20211399, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.1399, 2021. a, b
Frank, J., Foster, R., and Pagliari, C.: Open access publishing – noble intention, flawed reality, Soc. Sci. Med., 317, 115592, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115592, 2023. a, b
Fraser, N., Brierley, L., Dey, G., Polka, J. K., Pálfy, M., Nanni, F., and Coates, J. A.: The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape, PLOS Biology, 19, e3000959, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959, 2021. a
Fu, D. Y. and Hughey, J. J.: Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article, eLife, 8, e52646, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52646, 2019. a
Garakyaraghi, S., Aumiller, W., Bertozzi, C. R., and Scholes, G.: Transparent peer review: A look inside the peer review process, ACS Central Science, 7, 1771–1772, https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.1c01238, 2021. a
Garfield, E. and Sher, I. H.: New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing, American Documentation, 14, 195–201, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140304, 1963. a
Gates Open Research: https://gatesopenresearch.org/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2017. a
GC Guidelines for Editors: https://www.geoscience-communication.net/policies/guidelines_for_editors.html (last access: 28 September 2025), 2018. a
Geodynamica: https://geodynamica.univ-lyon1.fr/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2025. a
Geomorphica: https://journals.psu.edu/geomorphica (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
Geoscientific Model Development: https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
German Science and Humanities Council: Recommendations on the Transformation of Academic Publishing: Towards Open Access, https://doi.org/10.57674/0gtq-b603, 2022. a
Ginsparg, P.: First steps towards electronic research communication, Comput. Phys., 8, 390–396, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4823313, 1994. a
GMD Editorial Policy: https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/gmd_editorial_policy.html (last access: 28 September 2025), 2008. a
GMD executive editors: Editorial: The publication of geoscientific model developments v1.2, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2215–2225, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2215-2019, 2019. a
Green, D. E.: An experiment in communication: The information exchange group., Science (New York, N.Y.), 143, 308–309, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.143.3604.308.b, 1964. a
Grossmann, A. and Brembs, B.: Current market rates for scholarly publishing services., F1000Research, 10, 20, https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.2, 2021. a
Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., Bryson, G. L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C., Balcom, L., Barros, T., Berger, M., Ciro, J. B., Cugusi, L., Donaldson, M. R., Egger, M., Graham, I. D., Hodgkinson, M., Khan, K. M., Mabizela, M., Manca, A., Milzow, K., Mouton, J., Muchenje, M., Olijhoek, T., Ommaya, A., Patwardhan, B., Poff, D., Proulx, L., Rodger, M., Severin, A., Strinzel, M., Sylos-Labini, M., Tamblyn, R., van Niekerk, M., Wicherts, J. M., and Lalu, M. M.: Predatory journals: no definition, no defence, Nature, 576, 210–212, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y, 2019. a
Hachani, S.: Open peer review: Fast forward for a new science, in: Current Issues in Libraries, Information Science and Related Fields, vol. 39 of Advances in Librarianship, 115–141, Emerald Group Publishing, ISBN 978-1-78441-637-9, 978-1-78441-638-6, https://doi.org/10.1108/S0065-283020150000039012, 2015. a, b
HAL: Hyper Articles en Ligne, https://about.hal.science/en/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2001. a
Hamilton, D. G., Fraser, H., Hoekstra, R., and Fidler, F.: Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review, eLife, 9, e62529, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62529, 2020. a
Hammarfelt, B. and Dahlin, J.: Soviet scientific publishing and the prehistory of preprints, LSE Impact Blog, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/11/04/soviet-scientific-publishing-and-the-prehistory-of-preprints/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Hearty, P., Ruedy, R., Kelley, M., Masson-Delmotte, V., Russell, G., Tselioudis, G., Cao, J., Rignot, E., Velicogna, I., Tormey, B., Donovan, B., Kandiano, E., von Schuckmann, K., Kharecha, P., Legrande, A. N., Bauer, M., and Lo, K.-W.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3761–3812, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3761-2016, 2016. a
Hanson, B. and van der Hilst, R.: Growing our publication partnership, Eos, 98, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EO067047, 2017. a
Hanson, M. A., Barreiro, P. G., Crosetto, P., and Brockington, D.: The strain on scientific publishing, Quantitative Science Studies, 5, 823–843, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327, 2024. a
Harnad, S.: Interactive Publication: Extending the American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic Publishing, Serials Review, pp. 58–61, https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/253370/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 1992. a
Haustein, S., Schares, E., Alperin, J. P., Hare, M., Butler, L.-A., and Schönfelder, N.: Estimating global article processing charges paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023, ArXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16551 (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
Hernán, M. A.: Impact Factor: A Call to Reason, Epidemiology, 20, 317–318, https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e31819ed4a6, 2009. a
HESS Jim Dooge Award: https://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/about/jim_dooge_award.html, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Ho, R. C.-M., Mak, K.-K., Tao, R., Lu, Y., Day, J. R., and Pan, F.: Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 74, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-74, 2013. a
Horbach, S. P. J. M. and Halffman, W.: The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications, Scientometrics, 118, 339–373, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2, 2019. a
Horbach, S. P. J. M. S. and Halffman, W. W.: The changing forms and expectations of peer review, Research integrity and peer review, 3, 8, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5, 2018. a, b
Hosseini, M., Horbach, S. P. J. M., Holmes, K., and Ross-Hellauer, T.: Open Science at the generative AI turn: An exploratory analysis of challenges and opportunities, Quantitative Science Studies, 6, 22–45, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00337, 2025. a
Huang, C.-K., Neylon, C., Montgomery, L., Hosking, R., Diprose, J. P., Handcock, R. N., and Wilson, K.: Open access research outputs receive more diverse citations, Scientometrics, 129, 825–845, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04894-0, 2024. a
Hyman, M. and Renn, J.: Towards an Epistemic Web; RatSWD_WP_197, SSRN, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2104137, 2012. a, b
Hynninen, N.: Opening up the peer review process: Evaluation and alignment in research paper trajectories, Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes, 3, 29–50, https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.21025.hyn, 2022. a
IFW Kiel: Economics E-Journal, https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/economics-e-journal/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Interactive discussion: Hansen et al.: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016-discussion.html (last access: 28 September 2025), 2016. a
Janowicz, K. and Hitzler, P.: Open and transparent: the review process of the Semantic Web journal, Learn. Publ., 25, 48–55, https://doi.org/10.1087/20120107, 2012. a
JIME: Journal of interactive media in education, https://jime.open.ac.uk/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
JISC: Joint Information Systems Committee, https://www.jisc.ac.uk/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
JMIR: Journal of medical internet research, https://www.jmir.org/announcements/320 (last access: 28 September 2025), 2022. a
Joelving, F.: AI-generated commentaries flood journals, distort metrics, 386, 1331–1332, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adv4101, 2024. a
Journal of Medical Internet Research: https://jmir.org/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Jussieu Call: https://jussieucall.org/jussieu-call/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2016. a
Justman, Q.: Transparent Peer Review Comes to Cell Systems, Cell Systems, 8, 477–478, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2019.06.002, 2019. a
Kastner, S.: Introducing Open peer review at JNeurosci, The Journal of Neuroscience, 43, 8074 LP – 8074, https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2045-23.2023, 2023. a
Khan, K.: Is open peer review the fairest system? No, BMJ, 341, c6425, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6425, 2010. a
Kiley, R.: Supporting open access for 20 years: Five issues that have slowed the transition to full and immediate OA, https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/supporting-open-access-for-20-years-five-issues-that-have-slowed-the-transition-to-full-and-immediate-oa/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2023. a
Kirkham, J. and Moher, D.: Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? - findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations], F1000Research, 7, https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15436.1, 2018. a
Klebel, T. and Ross-Hellauer, T.: The APC-barrier and its effect on stratification in open access publishing, Quantitative Science Studies, 4, 22–43, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00245, 2023. a
Kojaku, S., Livan, G., and Masuda, N.: Detecting anomalous citation groups in journal networks, Sci. Rep., 11, 14524, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93572-3, 2021. a
Koonin, E. V., Landweber, L. F., and Lipman, D. J.: Biology Direct:celebrating 7 years of open, published peer review, Biology Direct, 8, 11, https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-8-11, 2013. a
Kovanis, M., Trinquart, L., Ravaud, P., and Porcher, R.: Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication, Scientometrics, 113, 651–671, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2375-1, 2017. a
Kriegeskorte, N.: Open evaluation: A vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science, Front. Comput. Neurosci., 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00079, 2012. a, b, c
Kulczycki, E., Hołowiecki, M., Taşkın, Z., and Krawczyk, F.: Citation patterns between impact-factor and questionable journals, Scientometrics, 126, 8541–8560, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04121-8, 2021. a
Langham-Putrow, A., Bakker, C., and Riegelman, A.: Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles., PloS one, 16, e0253129, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253129, 2021. a
Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Macaluso, B., Milojević, S., Cronin, B., and Thelwall, M.: arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Tech., 65, 1157–1169, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23044, 2014. a
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., and Mongeon, P.: The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era, PLOS ONE, 10, e0127502, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502, 2015. a, b
Lawrence, R.: Publishing fees released, https://blog.f1000.com/2012/09/20/publishing-fees-released/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2012. a
Lawson, S.: Fee Waivers for open access journals, Publications, 3, 155–167, https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3030155, 2015. a
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., and Cronin, B.: Bias in peer review, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tech., 64, 2–17, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784, 2013. a
Leiden Manifesto: http://www.leidenmanifesto.org/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2015. a
Lemberger, T. and Pulverer, B.: Review Commons – pre-journal peer review, EMBO reports, 20, e49663, https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201949663, 2019. a
Leung, T. I., de Azevedo Cardoso, T., Mavragani, A., and Eysenbach, G.: Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor, J. Med. Internet Res., 25, e51584, https://doi.org/10.2196/51584, 2023. a
Liverpool, L.: Open-access reformers launch next bold publishing plan, Nature, 623, 238–240, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03342-6, 2023. a
Lutz, J. F., Sodervan, J., van Edig, X., Freeman, A., Kramer, B., and Rosenkrantz, C. H.: Knowledge exchange analysis report on alternative publishing platforms, Alternative Publishing Platforms, https://doi.org/10.21428/996e2e37.0eafc1a8, 2023. a
MacKenzie, L.: Elsevier Expands Footprint in Scholarly Workflow, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/03/elsevier-makes-move-institutional-repositories-acquisition-bepress (last access: 28 September 2025), 2017. a
MacLeavy, J., Harris, R., and Johnston, R.: The unintended consequences of open access publishing – and possible futures, Geoforum, 112, 9–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.12.010, 2020. a
Madison, C.: https://theplosblog.plos.org/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2019. a
Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Tech., 73, 702–707, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24574, 2022. a
Martone, M.: Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles, in: Data Citation Synthesis Group: Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles, FORCE11, San Diego, https://doi.org/10.25490/a97f-egyk, 2014. a
McVeigh, M. E. and Mann, S. J.: The journal impact factor denominator: Defining citable (counted) items, JAMA, 302, 1107–1109, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1301, 2009. a
Merchant, S. and Eckardt, N. A.: The Plant Cell begins opt-in publishing of peer review reports, The Plant Cell, 28, 2343, https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.16.00798, 2016. a
Moylan, E., Junge, K., Oman, C., Morris, E., and Graf, C.: Transparent Peer Review at Wiley: Two years on what have we learnt?, Authorea, Inc., https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160026642.27642568/v2, 2020. a
Moylan, E. C., Harold, S., O'Neill, C., and Kowalczuk, M. K.: Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?, BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, 15, 55, https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-6511-15-55, 2014. a
Májovský, M., Černý M., Kasal, M., Komarc, M., and D., N.: Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened, J. Med. Internet Res., 24, 639–663, https://doi.org/10.2196/46924, 2023. a
Nature Communications Editorial: Trial of transparent peer review yields promising results, Nature Communications 603, 8, 2022. a
Nature Editorial: Peer-review trial and debate, Nature, 442, xiii–xiii, https://doi.org/10.1038/7099xiiid, 2006. a, b, c
Nature Editorial: Beware the impact factor, Nature Materials, 12, 89, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3566, 2013. a
Nature Editorial: Transparent peer review at Nature Communications, Nat. Commun., 6, 10277, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10277, 2015. a
Nature Editorial: Transparent peer review one year on, Nat. Commun., 7, 13626, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13626, 2016. a
Nature Editorial: Transparent peer review for all, Nat. Commun., 13, 6173, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33056-8, 2022. a
Nature Editorial: Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature's research papers, Nature, 642, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01880-9, 2025. a, b
Nature Geoscience Editorial, Making peer review transparent, Nature Geoscience, 927, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01825-x, 2025. a
Nature Precedings: https://www.nature.com/npre (last access: 28 September 2025), 2007–2012. a
New Journal of Physics: https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1367-2630, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., and Rowland, F.: The citation advantage of open-access articles, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tech., 59, 1963–1972, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20898, 2008. a
OA2020: Expression of interest in the large-scale implementation of open access to scholarly journals, https://oa2020.org/mission/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2016b. a
Open APC: https://treemaps.openapc.net/apcdata/openapc/#publisher/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
Open Research Europe: https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2017. a
Open Research Europe: Article processing charges, https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/for-authors/article-processing-charges (last access: 28 September 2025), 2020. a
Oviedo-García, M. Á.: Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), Res. Evaluat., 30, 405–419a, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab020, 2021. a
Pattinson, D. and Currie, G.: Toward Science-Led Publishing, Learn. Publ., 38, e2012, https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2012, 2025. a
PCI Facts & Figures: Partners and Supporters, https://peercommunityin.org/current-pcis/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
PeerJ: https://peerj.com/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2012. a
PeerJ Blog: Innovative Open Research Publisher PeerJ Joins Taylor & Francis, https://peerj.com/blog/post/115284888962/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
Peters, M. A., Brighouse, S., Tesar, M., Sturm, S., and Jackson, L.: The open peer review experiment in Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT), Educ. Philos. Theory, 55, 133–140, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1846519, 2023. a
Petrou, C.: Guest Post – Of special issues and journal purges, https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/03/30/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2023. a
Pinfield, S., Salter, J., and Bath, P. A.: The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Tech., 67, 1751–1766, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23446, 2016. a
Pollock, D. and Michael, A.: Open access mythbusting: Testing two prevailing assumptions about the effects of open access adoption, Learn. Publ., 32, 7–12, https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1209, 2019. a
Pöschl, U.: Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance, IFLA Journal, 36, 40–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035209359573, 2010. a
Pöschl, U.: Interactive Open Access Publishing and Peer Review: The Effectiveness and Perspectives of Transparency and Self-Regulation in Scientific Communication and Evaluation, LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 19, 293–314, https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7967, 2010. a
Pöschl, U.: Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation, Front. Comput. Neurosc., 6, 33, https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00033, 2012. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u
Pöschl, U.: A scientist's perspective on the needs and opportunities for large-scale open access to scholarly research articles & journals, https://oa2020.org/wp-content/uploads/B12_Poeschl.pdf (last access: 28 September 2025), 2015. a
Pöschl, U. and Koop, T.: Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assurance, Information Services & Use, 28, 105–107, https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2008-0567, 2008. a, b
Pourret, O., Hedding, D. W., Ibarra, D. E., Irawan, D. E., Liu, H., and Tennant, J. P.: International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences, European Science Editing, 47, e63663, https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e63663, 2021. a, b
Pourret, O., Irawan, D. E., Shaghaei, N., van Rijsingen, E. M., and Besançon, L.: Toward more inclusive metrics and open science to measure research assessment in Earth and natural sciences., Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 7, 850333, https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.850333, 2022. a
PRElights: https://prelights.biologists.com/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2018. a
Preprints.org: https://www.preprints.org/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2020. a
PREreview: https://prereview.org/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2017. a
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., and Neylon, C.: Altmetrics: A manifesto, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12684249, 2010. a
Prophy: https://www.prophy.ai/referee-finder/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Pulverer, B.: Transparency showcases strength of peer review, Nature, 468, 29–31, https://doi.org/10.1038/468029a, 2010. a
QEIOS: https://www.qeios.com/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2019. a
Queiroz Alves, E.: You don't have to review alone… introducing EGU's new co-reviewing scheme for Early Career Scientists and first time reviewers, https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2024/12/06/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
Queiroz Alves, E. and D'Souza, G.: Learning from EGU's first Peer Review Training: In conversation with Kifle Aregahegn, https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2023/11/15/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2023. a
Rampelotto, P. H.: Opening up peer review in Life: Towards a transparent and reliable process, Life, 4, 225–226, https://doi.org/10.3390/life4020225, 2014. a
ReimagineReview: Open Peer Review, BMC Group: Learning from 18 years of open peer review, https://reimaginereview.asapbio.org/listing/open-peer-review-bmc-group-in-progress/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Research Papers in Economics: http://repec.org/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Research Square: https://www.researchsquare.com/, last access: 28 September 2025, 2023. a
Resnik, D. B. and Hosseini, M.: The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool, AI and Ethics, Springer Nature Link, 5, 1499–1521, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00493-8, 2024. a, b
Retraction Watch: Database, https://gitlab.com/crossref/retraction-watch-data/-/blob/main/retraction_watch.csv (last access: 28 September 2025), 2025. a
Review Commons: https://www.reviewcommons.org/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2019. a
Richter, F. C., Gea‐Mallorquí, E., Mortha, A., Ruffin, N., and Vabret, N.: The Preprint Club, EMBO reports, 24, e57258, https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202357258, 2023. a
Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Watkinson, A., Xu, J., Abrizah, A., and Świgoń, M.: Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers, Learn. Publ., 30, 269–277, https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1111, 2017. a
Ross-Hellauer, T.: What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved], F1000Research, 6, https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2, 2017. a, b, c
Ross-Hellauer, T. and Görögh, E.: Guidelines for open peer review implementation, Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4, 4, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9, 2019. a
Ross-Hellauer, T. and Horbach, S. P. J. M.: Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review, Res. Evaluat., 33, rvae004, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004, 2024. a, b, c
Ross-Hellauer, T., Schmidt, B., and Kramer, B.: Are funder open access platforms a good idea?, SAGE Open, 8, 2158244018816717, https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018816717, 2018. a, b
Ross-Hellauer, T., Bouter, L. M., and Horbach, S. P. J. M.: Open peer review urgently requires evidence: A call to action, PLOS Biology, 21, 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002255, 2023. a
Rousi, A. M. and Laakso, M.: Overlay journals: A study of the current landscape, J. Libr. Inf. Sci., 56, 15–28, https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221125208, 2022. a
Royal Society Publishing: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/about#question6, last access: 28 September 2025. a
RSC News: https://www.rsc.org/news-events/articles/2020/mar/rsc-launches-transparent-peer-review/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2020. a
Rzayeva, N., Pinfield, S., and Waltman, L.: Adoption of Preprinting Across Scientific Disciplines and Geographical Regions (1991–2023), SocArXiV, https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/xdwc4_v2, 2025. a
Sage: press release, https://www.uksg.org/newsletter/sage-partners-clarivate-offer-transparent-peer-review/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2021. a
Sandewall, E.: Maintaining live discussion in two-stage Open Peer Review, Front. Comput. Neurosci., 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00009, 2012. a, b, c, d
Schekman, R., Patterson, M., Watt, F., and Weigel, D.: Launching eLife, Part 1, eLife, 1, e00270, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00270, 2012. a
Schimmer, R., Geschuhn, K. K., and Vogler, A.: Disrupting the subscription journals' business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access, MPG PuRe, https://doi.org/10.17617/1.3, 2015. a, b, c, d
Schuhl, A.: A progress report on opening up scientific publications, https://www.cnrs.fr/en/update/progress-report-opening-scientific-publications (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
Schultz, D. M.: Rejection rates for Journals publishing in the Atmospheric Sciences, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 91, 231–244, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2908.1, 2010. a
Schultz, T.: All the research that's fit to print: Open access and the news media, Quantitative Science Studies, 2, 828–844, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00139, 2021. a
Schultz, T.: A survey of U.S. science journalists' knowledge and opinions of open access research, Int. J. Commun., 17, 2732–2753, 2023. a
SciELO: https://scielo.org/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 1997. a
SciELO preprints: https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo (last access: 28 September 2025), 2020. a
Science Europe Strategy Plan 2021-2026: Science Europe, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4911426, 2021. a
Sciety: https://www.sciety.org, last access: 28 September 2025. a
SciPost Journals: The Home of Genuine Open Publishing, https://scipost.org/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Second French Plan for Open Science: https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/second-national-plan-for-open-science-npos/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2021. a
Sedimentologika: https://oap.unige.ch/journals/sdk/index (last access: 28 September 2025), 2023. a
Seeber, M., Klemenčič, M., Meoli, M., and Sin, C.: Publishing review reports to reveal and preserve the quality and fairness of the peer review process, European Journal of Higher Education, 13, 121–125, https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2023.2192549, 2023. a
Seglen, P. O.: Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research, BMJ, 314, 497, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497, 1997. a
Seismica: https://seismica.library.mcgill.ca/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2022. a
Severin, A. and Chataway, J.: Overburdening of peer reviewers: A multi-stakeholder perspective on causes and effects, Learn. Publ., 34, 537–546, https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1392, 2021. a
Shanahan, D. R. and Olsen, B. R.: Opening peer-review: the democracy of science, Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 13, 2, https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5751-13-2, 2014. a
Shoham, N. and Pitman, A.: Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?, BJPsych Advances, 27, 247–254, https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2020.61, 2021. a
Shuai, X., Pepe, A., and Bollen, J.: How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations, PLOS ONE, 7, e47523, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047523, 2012. a
Siler, K. and Larivière, V.: Who games metrics and rankings? Institutional niches and journal impact factor inflation, Res. Policy, 51, 104608, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104608, 2022. a
Simons, K.: The Misused Impact Factor, Science, 322, 165, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165316, 2008. a
Singh Chawla, D.: How reliable is this research? Tool flags papers discussed on PubPeer, Nature, 629, 271–272, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01247-6, 2024. a
Smith, A. M., Katz, D. S., Niemeyer, K. E., and Group, F. S. C. W.: Software citation principles, PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e86, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.86, 2016. a
SNSF News: The SNSF is no longer funding Open Access articles in special issues, https://www.snf.ch/en/g2ICvujLDm9ZAU8d/news/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2023. a
Society, M.: Microbiology Society Launches an Innovative Open Research Platform, https://microbiologysociety.org/news/society-news/microbiology-society-launches-an-innovative-open-research-platform.html (last access: 28 September 2025), 2022. a
Sondervan, J., Lutz, J. F., and Kramer, B.: Alternative Publishing Platforms, Alternative Publishing Platforms, Knowledge Exchange, https://doi.org/10.21428/996e2e37.3ebdc864, 2022. a
SPARC Europe: Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, https://sparceurope.org/what-we-do/open-access/sparc-europe-open-access-resources/open-access-citation-advantage-service-oaca/oaca-list/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2015. a
SPARC Europe 2025-2028: SPARC Europe publishes new strategy 2025-2028, https://sparceurope.org/sparc-europe-publishes-new-strategy-2025-2028/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2025. a
Springer Nature: press release, https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/ta-white-paper-shows-impact-on-oa/27729346 (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
SSRN: Social Science Research Network, https://www.ssrn.com (last access: 28 September 2025), 1994. a
Stern, B.: How the Web of Science takes a step back, https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/how-the-web-of-science-takes-a-step-back/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
Taylor & Francis News: F1000 Research joins Taylor & Francis Group, https://newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/f1000-research-joins-taylor-francis/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2020. a
Taylor, M.: Slow, slow, quick, quick, slow: five altmetric sources observed over a decade show evolving trends, by research age, attention source maturity and open access status., Scientometrics, 128, 2175–2200, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04653-1, 2023. a
Tektonika: https://tektonika.online/index.php/home/index (last access: 28 September 2025), 2023. a
Tennant, J. P.: The state of the art in peer review, FEMS microbiology letters, 365, fny204, https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny204, 2018. a, b
Tennant, J. P. and Ross-Hellauer, T.: The limitations to our understanding of peer review., Research integrity and peer review, 5, 6, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1, 2020. a
Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., and Hartgerink, C. H. J.: The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review, F1000Research, 5, 632, https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3, 2016. a
Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., B Collister, L., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., Masuzzo, P., Caravaggi, A., Berg, D. R., Niemeyer, K. E., Ross-Hellauer, T., Mannheimer, S., Rigling, L., Katz, D. S., Greshake Tzovaras, B., Pacheco-Mendoza, J., Fatima, N., Poblet, M., Isaakidis, M., Irawan, D. E., Renaut, S., Madan, C. R., Matthias, L., Nørgaard Kjær, J., O'Donnell, D. P., Neylon, C., Kearns, S., Selvaraju, M., and Colomb, J.: A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review, F1000Research, 6, 1151, https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f
Teplitskiy, M., Lu, G., and Duede, E.: Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Tech., 68, 2116–2127, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23687, 2017. a
The Company of Biologists: https://www.biologists.com/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Thelwall, M., Allen, L., Papas, E.-R., Nyakoojo, Z., and Weigert, V.: Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model, J. Inf. Sci., 47, 809–820, https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520938678, 2020. a
TIME: https://time.com/6550576/13-ways-the-world-got-better-in-2023/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2023. a
Triggle, C. R. and Triggle, D. J.: From Gutenberg to open science: An unfulfilled Odyssey, Drug Develop. Res., 78, 3–23, https://doi.org/10.1002/ddr.21369, 2017. a, b
Triggle, C. R., MacDonald, R., Triggle, D. J., and Grierson, D.: Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges, Accountability in Research, 29, 133–164, https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1909481, 2022. a
Trueblood, J. S., Allison, D. B., Field, S. M., Fishbach, A., Gaillard, S. D. M., Gigerenzer, G., Holmes, W. R., Lewandowsky, S., Matzke, D., Murphy, M. C., Musslick, S., Popov, V., Roskies, A. L., ter Schure, J., and Teodorescu, A. R.: The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 122, e2401231121, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401231121, 2025. a
Trumbore, S., Barros, A., Davidson, E., Ehlmann, B., Famiglietti, J., Gruber, N., Hudson, M., Illangasekare, T., Kang, S., Parsons, T., Rizzoli, P., Salters, V., Stevens, B., Wuebbles, D., Zeitler, P., and Zhu, T.: AGU Advances Goes Online, AGU Advances, 1, e2019AV000105, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019AV000105, 2020. a
Ulrich's Web: https://www.ulrichsweb.com/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Vadhera, A. S., Lee, J. S., Veloso, I. L., Khan, Z. A., Trasolini, N. A., Gursoy, S., Kunze, K. N., Chahla, J., and Verma, N. N.: Open access articles garner increased social media attention and citation rates compared with subscription access research articles: An Altmetrics-based analysis, Am. J. Sport. Med., 50, 3690–3697, https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465221124885, 2022. a
van Edig, X.: Interactive Public Peer Review™: an innovative approach to scientific quality assurance, in: International Conference on Electronic Publishing, https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:34494052 (last access: 28 September 2025), 2016. a
Van Noorden, R.: Open access: The true cost of science publishing, Nature, 495, 426–429, https://doi.org/10.1038/495426a, 2013. a, b
Van Noorden, R.: More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 – a new record, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8, 2023. a
van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., and Smith, R.: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial., BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 318, 23–27, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23, 1999. a
van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., and Evans, S. J. W.: Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial, BMJ, 341, c5729, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729, 2010. a
Velterop, J.: Should scholarly societies embrace open access (or is it the kiss of death)?, Learn. Publ., 16, 167–169, https://doi.org/10.1087/095315103322110932, 2003. a
Velterop, J.: Peer review – issues, limitations, and future development, ScienceOpen Research, 0, 1–5, https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AYXIPS.v1, 2015. a, b
VeriXiv: https://www.f1000.com/verixiv/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2024. a
Vogel, G.: German science organizations strike open-access deal with Elsevier, Science, e2401231121, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk7188, 2023. a
Volcanica: https://www.jvolcanica.org/ojs/index.php/volcanica (last access: 28 September 2025), 2018. a
Wakeling, S., Willett, P., Creaser, C., Fry, J., Pinfield, S., Spezi, V., Bonne, M., Founti, C., and Medina Perea, I.: ‘No comment'? A study of commenting on PLOS articles, J. Inf. Sci., 46, 82–100, https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551518819965, 2019. a
Walker, R. and Rocha da Silva, P.: Emerging trends in peer review – a survey, Front. Neurosci.-Switz., 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00169, 2015. a
Waltman, L., Kaltenbrunner, W., Pinfield, S., and Woods, H. B.: How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought, Learn. Publ., 36, 334–347, https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1544, 2023. a
Wang, P., You, S., Rath, M., and Wolfram, D.: Open Peer Review in scientific publishing: A web mining study of PeerJ authors and reviewers, Journal of Data and Information Science, 1, 60–80, https://doi.org/10.20309/JDIS.201625, 2016. a
Web of Science: https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/, last access: 28 September 2025. a
Wellcome Open Research: https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/ (last access: 28 September 2025), 2016. a
Weller, M.: JIME relaunch, https://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no_good_reason/jime (last access: 28 September 2025), 2012. a
Whitfield, J.: Elsevier boycott gathers pace, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.10010, 2012. a
WikiJournal Preprints: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_Preprints (last access: 28 September 2025), 2023. a
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., Gray, A. J. G., Groth, P., Goble, C., Grethe, J. S., Heringa, J., 't Hoen, P. A. C., Hooft, R., Kuhn, T., Kok, R., Kok, J., Lusher, S. J., Martone, M. E., Mons, A., Packer, A. L., Persson, B., Rocca-Serra, P., Roos, M., van Schaik, R., Sansone, S.-A., Schultes, E., Sengstag, T., Slater, T., Strawn, G., Swertz, M. A., Thompson, M., van der Lei, J., van Mulligen, E., Velterop, J., Waagmeester, A., Wittenburg, P., Wolstencroft, K., Zhao, J., and Mons, B.: The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship, Sci. Data, 3, 160018, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18, 2016. a
Willis, M.: Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses, Learn. Publ., 29, 5–7, https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1006, 2016. a
Wolff, E., Barbante, C., Goosse, H., Kiefer, T., and Rousseau, D.-D.: Clarifications about the concept and review process of Climate of the Past, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phy., 73, 2043, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.06.013, 2011. a
Wolfram, D., Wang, P., Hembree, A., and Park, H.: Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science, Scientometrics, 125, 1033–1051, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4, 2020. a, b
Xie, B., Shen, Z., and Wang, K.: Is preprint the future of science? A thirty year journey of online preprint services, ArXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.09066, 2021. a
Xu, C. and Zong, Q.: Can open peer review improve uptake of preprints into policies? Evidence from a causal inference, Science and Public Policy, 51, scad083, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad083, 2024. a
Zhan, L., Zhang, Z., and Liang, Y.: Necessity and approach for implementing open peer review in academic frontier papers, Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, Vol. 35, 1549–1557, https://doi.org/10.11946/cjstp.202408280940, 2024. a
Zhuang, Z., Chen, J., Xu, H., Jiang, Y., and Lin, J.: Large Language Models for Automated Scholarly Paper Review: A Survey, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.10326, 2025. a
Executive editor
Open access publishing is a milestone in the history of academic dissemination, and ACP has been at the forefront of this movement. This paper is co-authored by four scientists who played key roles in initiating ACP, and establishing and maintaining it as a leading journal in atmospheric science. It articulates the vision of 'open science' that motivated the establishment of ACP and provides a comprehensive overview of the publication process of ACP and other EGU journals and how open science is enabled and promoted within that process. Detailed statistics and commentary reveal how open science practices in publication in EGU journals have developed and evolved over the last 25 years, and how this may continue to develop into the future.
Open access publishing is a milestone in the history of academic dissemination, and ACP has been...
Short summary
Over 25 years, the European Geosciences Union (EGU) has demonstrated the success, viability and benefits of interactive open-access (OA) publishing with public peer review in its journals, its publishing platform EGUsphere and virtual compilations. The article summarizes the evolution of the EGU/Copernicus publications and of OA publishing with interactive public peer review at large by placing the EGU/Copernicus publications in the context of current and future global open science.
Over 25 years, the European Geosciences Union (EGU) has demonstrated the success, viability and...
Special issue
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint