The Cryosphere data, code, and supplement checklist

Data, code, appendices, and supplementary files often travel together while a paper is being written. At submission, however, *The Cryosphere* gives them different homes. A dataset may belong in a repository and the reference list. A short method extension may belong in an appendix. A justified supplement becomes a separate file. The manuscript itself still needs availability sections that tell readers where the underlying materials can be found.

This guide answers one narrow question: how should authors organize data, code, appendices, and supplements for a The Cryosphere submission? The requirements below come from the journal's current submission instructions and Copernicus manuscript-preparation guidance. The cross-file review steps are conservative preparation advice, not additional journal rules.

Start with the review manuscript

For peer review and preprint posting, the journal asks for a complete manuscript PDF containing the title, authors, affiliations, abstract, text, tables, and figures. The PDF should use the one-column template format, portrait orientation, embedded fonts, consecutive page numbers, and line numbers. Figures, tables, and their captions should appear in the main text near their first mention rather than being collected at the end.

That review PDF is the center of the package. Before sorting secondary materials, confirm that it represents the version the co-authors intend to submit. A practical check is to compare the PDF against the source document and list every external object it refers to: datasets, software, model code, samples, interactive computing environments, videos, and supplements.

This inventory is a preparation aid. It helps authors locate broken links, missing citations, and mismatched file names. It does not decide whether the research materials are sufficient or whether they may legally or ethically be shared; those decisions remain with the authors.

Put research data in the right repository and section

The journal asks authors to follow the Copernicus data policy. The guidance calls for underlying research data to be deposited in reliable, FAIR-aligned repositories that assign persistent identifiers, preferably digital object identifiers. Datasets should be cited in the manuscript text and included in the reference list with their persistent identifiers.

The manuscript must also include a Data availability section near the end, before the acknowledgements. That section should explain how readers can access the underlying data. If the data cannot be made public, the guidance calls for a detailed explanation of the applicable constraint, such as law, institutional policy, funder terms, privacy, intellectual property, licensing, or the research's ethical context.

A useful final check connects four places:

• the in-text dataset citation;
• the matching reference-list entry;
• the repository record and persistent identifier; and
• the Data availability statement.

The names, version information, and links should describe the same deposited object. Formatting can reveal inconsistencies, but the authors must verify the repository record, access conditions, and disclosure language.

Give software and model code a clear route

Copernicus encourages authors to deposit software, algorithms, and model code in FAIR-aligned repositories or archives when possible. Deposited code should receive a persistent identifier, be cited in the manuscript, and appear in the reference list.

The manuscript should then include a Code availability section, or a combined Code and data availability section when that better matches the materials. The heading is not a substitute for the underlying record. Check that the section points to the intended release or archive, the citation resolves to the same object, and the reference entry does not accidentally point to an active working branch that may later change.

If access is limited, authors should provide the truthful constraint and access information supported by their institution, funder, agreements, and the journal's current policy. Articlo does not determine whether code can be shared or assess the scientific reproducibility of the repository.

Decide between an appendix and a supplement

The journal distinguishes appendices from supplements. Material needed to understand the essential aspects of the paper should preferably remain in the main text. Extra figures, tables, or technical and theoretical developments that support expert readers but would interrupt the main discussion may be placed in appendices.

Appendices remain part of the manuscript. They use capital-letter labels such as Appendix A and Appendix B, with their own equation, figure, and table sequences such as (A1), Fig. B5, or Table C6.

Supplementary material is separate. The guidance reserves it for material that cannot reasonably be included in the main text or appendices. Examples can include short videos, very large images, maps, CIF files, and short computer-code files. A supplement must not introduce scientific interpretations or findings beyond the manuscript.

This distinction suggests a practical question for each extra item: does a reader need it inside the paper to understand the work, is it supporting detail suited to an appendix, or is it a justified external object? That is an author decision. The preparation check should make the chosen location visible and consistent.

Package justified supplements carefully

When a supplement is appropriate, the journal accepts it as a single PDF or ZIP archive and limits the overall file size to 50 MB. Larger materials should go to a reliable FAIR-aligned repository, with the persistent identifier cited in the manuscript.

Copernicus adds a title page during publication, so authors are told not to duplicate the article title, author names, or correspondence email on the supplied supplement. Supplement sections, equations, figures, and tables use an S-based numbering system, such as Section S3, Fig. S5, or Table S6.

Before upload, check that:

• the manuscript cites the supplement explicitly;
• supplement numbering is independent from main-text and appendix numbering;
• every cited supplementary item exists in the supplied file;
• the file is a PDF or ZIP archive within the stated limit;
• the supplement does not repeat a publisher-added title page; and
• material better suited to a repository is not being used as a workaround for the repository and citation route.

Keep the end sections in a stable order

The journal's manuscript-composition guidance places availability and disclosure sections after the main conclusions and appendices. The relevant sequence includes code availability, data availability, interactive computing environment, sample availability, video supplement, and the publisher-inserted supplement link, followed by the team list where applicable, author contribution, competing interests, acknowledgements, and financial support.

Not every manuscript needs every optional availability section. The safe preparation approach is to keep only the sections that apply, use the requested headings, and avoid moving author-supplied declarations into an unrelated location merely to make the document look shorter.

The Author contribution section belongs before the acknowledgements and should briefly describe each co-author's contribution. Copernicus recommends the CRediT contributor roles taxonomy. The authors must supply and approve those roles; a formatting check can only verify that the section is present and consistently presented.

Prepare the upload text alongside the files

In addition to the review manuscript, the journal asks authors to prepare the abstract text and a short non-technical summary for the upload form. The short summary is limited to 500 characters including spaces, should be written in English as a paragraph rather than a list, and should avoid unexplained abbreviations.

Treat these form fields as part of the submission package. Compare the pasted abstract with the final manuscript abstract, and check the short summary's character count after the last edit. Do not copy an outdated version from a separate notes file.

Run one connected-package review

Immediately before upload, review the manuscript, repositories, references, and files as one system:

• the review PDF uses the requested one-column, numbered-page, line-numbered format;
• figures and tables appear near their first mention;
• every data and code citation maps to the intended persistent record;
• availability statements agree with the citations and access conditions;
• appendices remain inside the manuscript and use letter-based numbering;
• justified supplements use a single PDF or ZIP file and S-based numbering;
• manuscript callouts match the supplied supplementary items;
• the author-contribution and disclosure sections appear in the intended end-matter sequence;
• the upload-form abstract matches the manuscript; and
• the 500-character non-technical summary is current.

The value of this pass is consistency. A repository, citation, statement, and uploaded file can each look correct alone while still pointing to different versions.

Prepare the package without changing the research

Articlo formats author-provided manuscripts and checks them against stored journal requirements. It does not write research, verify references, assess repository contents, decide what authors may share, or guarantee acceptance. Authors remain responsible for the research, declarations, access conditions, rights, citations, and current journal instructions.

Review the The Cryosphere preparation path or run a free readiness check to identify packaging and formatting issues before upload.