Contact

Reaching the editorial team at Earth Science Authority is straightforward — whether the question is about a specific article, a factual discrepancy worth flagging, or a broader inquiry about the site's reference content. This page explains what kinds of messages get a response, how quickly, and what to expect when something lands in the inbox.

Response expectations

The editorial inbox handles a narrower range of requests than most general-purpose contact forms. That's worth saying plainly, because it sets realistic expectations on both ends.

Messages that consistently receive a substantive reply fall into 3 categories:

1. Factual corrections — A named source contradicts something published on the site. The stronger the citation, the faster the review. A message that includes a link to a USGS, NOAA, or peer-reviewed source in direct conflict with site content will move to the top of the queue.
2. Content gaps — A specific topic within earth science isn't covered, or an existing page like Seismology and Earthquakes or Glaciology and Ice Science omits a significant subtopic. These get logged for editorial review.
3. Institutional inquiries — Organizations in geoscience education, federal agencies, or public-sector research programs with questions about the site's reference framework.

Messages that won't receive a reply: unsolicited link exchange requests, AI-generated bulk outreach (the pattern is recognizable at about 4 words in), and general "great article" notes with a backlink ask tacked on at the end. None of those require a response, and none get one.

Turnaround for substantive messages is typically 3 to 5 business days. During periods of active content revision — particularly when a major USGS or NOAA data release prompts updates across interconnected pages like Climate Science and Climatology and Paleoclimatology — response time may extend to 10 business days.

Additional contact options

The editorial inbox is the primary channel and handles the full range of content-related correspondence. There is no separate press line, no social media account monitored for direct messages, and no live chat function.

For time-sensitive corrections involving a factual error that could cause genuine misunderstanding — say, an incorrect measurement in a page covering Natural Hazards and Disasters or an outdated depth figure in Oceanography Overview — flagging the specific page URL in the subject line will accelerate routing. The editorial workflow treats subject lines that name a specific page differently from those labeled "question" or left blank.

There is a meaningful distinction worth drawing here: a correction request and a editorial disagreement are handled differently. A correction involves a verifiable factual discrepancy traceable to a named public source. An editorial disagreement involves interpretation — whether, for example, a page's framing of Climate Change: Earth Science Perspective emphasizes one dimension of the science over another. Both are welcome. Only the first triggers a formal editorial review process with a documented outcome.

How to reach this office

Correspondence goes to the editorial address published in the site footer. That's the single active inbox for all content-related communication.

When composing a message, including the following 4 elements will significantly reduce back-and-forth:

1. The specific page URL or slug (e.g., /plate-tectonics or /flood-science-and-river-systems)

Messages that omit all of these don't get ignored — they just take longer to act on, because the editorial team has to reconstruct the context before doing anything useful with the inquiry.

Service area covered

Earth Science Authority publishes reference content with national scope, focused on the United States but covering global earth science phenomena where the science demands it. A page on El Niño and La Niña, for instance, cannot be meaningfully scoped to US borders — the Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies at the center of those events operate on a basin-wide scale measured in millions of square kilometers.

The site draws primarily on US federal sources: the U.S. Geological Survey, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information, NASA's Earth Observing System, and the Environmental Protection Agency's environmental data programs. Where international datasets from sources like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the World Meteorological Organization are the most authoritative available, those are used directly.

Content priority tracks the topics where US readers most need reliable, jargon-light reference material — which explains why the site covers Groundwater and Aquifer Systems and Drought and Desertification with more depth than, say, deep-ocean hydrothermal geochemistry. The editorial compass points toward utility without sacrificing rigor.

Institutional partners or academic programs interested in the site's coverage of Earth Science Education in the US or Earth Science Careers are welcome to reach out through the same editorial channel — those inquiries are routed to the appropriate editorial contact rather than sitting in a general queue.

References

• U.S. Geological Survey