Copernicus template additional information on copyright statement

[RLumSK]

Scope

This pull request addresses a minor issue in the Copernicus template LaTeX file, placing the copyright statement further down.

Background

I am currently co-authoring a manuscript for a Copernicus journal. Our manuscript was accepted for a public discussion. However, it bounced back to us during the file validation step. The email we received from the Copernicus office said:

I would like to inform you that the copyright statement should appear in the data/code availability section or wherever the data is mentioned in the preprint.

Modified files

Hence, I modified the template.tex accordingly and tested it. It seems fine now. Still, @nuest perhaps you want to double-check the amendment since you created the template?

Modified files:

• template.tex

• NEWS.md (including a minor typo correction in an old news line)

• Update NEWS.

[cderv]

Thanks @RLumSK !

As you are in contact with the editor, I believe that your change is the right one. However, what is strange is that the template they provide is correct with our template (which use theirs obviously).

From https://publications.copernicus.org/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html

...

\begin{abstract}
TEXT
\end{abstract}


\copyrightstatement{TEXT} %% This section is optional and can be used for copyright transfers.


\introduction  %% \introduction[modified heading if necessary]
TEXT


\section{HEADING}
TEXT


\subsection{HEADING}
TEXT


\subsubsection{HEADING}
TEXT


\conclusions  %% \conclusions[modified heading if necessary]
TEXT

%% The following commands are for the statements about the availability of data sets and/or software code corresponding to the manuscript.
%% It is strongly recommended to make use of these sections in case data sets and/or software code have been part of your research the article is based on.

\codeavailability{TEXT} %% use this section when having only software code available

...

As you see above, the copyright statement is before the body, just below the abstract as in our template.

Do you know if their template is still good ? Is it the correct one we are based on ?

[nuest]

@RLumSK Was you manuscript accepted after this simple reordering?

Same comment as @cderv - it's weird that their template is different, if you have the time it would be great if you can follow up on that one. Otherwise I'd say: the editor is always right :-)

[RLumSK]

It was the journal office, not the editor (I guess most editors do not even know the LaTeX template) who contacted us. As @nuest suggested, I will liaise directly with the journal office to make sure we get this right.

@nuest Not yet, but the deadline is today, and since they advised us to reorder it, I presume that it will work. If not, I will text again.

[nuest]

If you have not written yet to Copernicus, please CC me (daniel.nuest@uni-muenster.de). Thanks!

[RLumSK]

So, Copernicus was super responsive and supportive as usual. As @nuest has seen it already or will see it in his email inbox, the issue was more or less caused by a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding on my side, I should admit. The copyright section is solely meant for transferring the authors' copyright to others (for instance the institute).

We had software affiliated with our manuscript, or better, developed as part of our toolchain to analyse the data. However, as I've learnt, such a piece of copyright information has to go into the data availability section. In other words: thank you for reviewing my PR so carefully and cross-checking it.

What is left is that I basically moved everything back in place and only added two new comments in the Rmd-file clarifying what needs to go where .... for others like me who might misinterpret the meaning of the copyright statement placeholder.

[cderv]

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

Great team work on this ! Really appreciated!