This Topical Issue of Solar Physics, devoted to the study of flux-rope structure in coronal mass ejections (CMEs), is based on two Coordinated Data Analysis Workshops (CDAWs) held in 2010 (20 - 23 September in Dan Diego, California, USA) and 2011 (September 5-9 in Alcala, Spain). The primary purpose of the CDAWs was to address the question: Do all CMEs have flux rope structure? There are 18 papers om this topical issue, including this preface.

In this work, non-recurrent Forbush decreases (FDs) triggered by the passage of shock-driven interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) have been analyzed. Fifty-nine ICMEs have been studied but only the 25% of them were associated to a FD. We find that shock-driving magnetic clouds (MCs) produce deeper FDs than shock-driving ejecta. This fact can be explained regarding to the observed growing trends between decreases in neutron monitor (NM) count rate and MC/ejecta speed and its associated rigidity. MCs are faster and have higher associated rigidities than ejecta. Also the deceleration of ICMEs seems to be a cause in producing FDs as can be inferred from the decreasing trend between NM count rate and deceleration. This probably implies that the interaction between the ICME traveling from the corona to the Earth and the solar wind can play an important role to produce deeper FDs. Finally, we conclude that ejecta without flux rope topology are the less effective in unchaining FDs.

This study aims to provide a reference to different magnetic field models and reconstruction methods for interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs). In order to understand the differences in the outputs of those models and codes, we analyze 59 events from the Coordinated Data Analysis Workshop (CDAW) list, using four different magnetic field models and reconstruction techniques; force-free fitting (Goldstein,1983,Burlaga,1988,Lepping et al.,1990), magnetostatic reconstruction using a numerical solution to the Grad-Shafranov equation (Hu and Sonnerup, 2001), fitting to a self-similarly expanding cylindrical configuration (Marubashi and Lepping, 2007) and elliptical, non-force free fitting (Hidalgo,2003). The resulting parameters of the reconstructions for the 59 events are compared statistically, as well as in selected case studies. The ability of a method to fit or reconstruct an event is found to vary greatly: the Grad-Shafranov reconstruction is successful for most magnetic clouds (MCs) but for less than 10% of the non-MC ICMEs; the other three methods provide a successful fit for more than 65% of all events. The differences between the reconstruction and fitting methods are discussed, and suggestions are proposed as to how to reduce them. We find that the magnitude of the axial field is relatively consistent across models but not the orientation of the axis of the ejecta. We also find that there are a few cases for which different signs of the magnetic helicity are found for the same event when we do not fix the boundaries, illustrating that this simplest of parameters is not necessarily always well constrained by fitting and reconstruction models. Finally, we look at three unique cases in depth to provide a comprehensive idea of the different aspects of how the fitting and reconstruction codes work.