Send your review to the email address or addresses designated in the assignment letter you received. In the subject line, please reference the appropriate file, e.g., MWR-0000 (DJ) Chen, Reviewer A. |
|
 |
Reviewers' Guidelines
Peer review of manuscripts is a vital part of communicating research ideas, accomplishments, and progress in the atmospheric sciences. Generally, a MWR Editor will ask two or three reviewers to advise on whether to accept, reject or transfer a paper for publication. Reviewers are given a month to complete reviews, unless special circumstances change that deadline. In addition, Editors may occasionally ask Associate Editors for assistance in making such decisions.
An Editor does not expect a Reviewer to rewrite a paper. The most important part of a Reviewer's job is to make a clear distinction between errors on the part of the Author and differences of opinion between the Author and Reviewer. Reviewers should be diplomatic, remembering that criticisms delivered with suggestions for improvement will help the Author the most.
Guidelines for MWR Reviews
In determining the suitability of a manuscript for publication in Monthly Weather Review, a Reviewer should consider the following questions:
- Is the study an original contribution in its field?
- Did the Author make errors in inference, interpretation, or mathematical analysis?
- Does the material lend itself to application in its field?
- Is the Author's presentation clear, concise and well organized?
- Is the abstract informative, giving the essence of the research in clear terms?
- Does the paper follow AMS policy on the use of SI units as stated in the current Authors' Guide?
- Important note: If you intend to send an annotated manuscript or other supplemental document to accompany your emailed review, please do so electronically. If you must send a paper document, please refer to it in your email to MWR’s Chief Editorial Assistant and request the address to which it may be sent and do so promptly.
Summary Rating
The Summary Rating provides a consistent set of guidelines to the Editor as to the Reviewer's recommendations concerning the final disposition of the paper. For the purposes of Monthly Weather Review, there are five categories of recommendations, each with specific actions to be taken. The AMS tracking system will allow only one of these decisions and no hybrids such as major/minor. Reviewers should interpret these categories as follows:
-
ACCEPT: Publish this manuscript in its present form (no revisions).
- RETURN FOR MINOR REVISION: If the Editor believes the Author's revision has accommodated the Reviewer's criticisms, the manuscript may be accepted. A revision may necessitate rewording for clarity, reducing overall paper length, or other factors. This recommendation indicates that you do not wish to see a further revision of the paper.
- RETURN FOR MAJOR REVISION: This category is similar to "minor revision"; however, you believe the revision must incorporate critical points that you need to verify before making a final recommendation to accept. You wish to see the revised version for a second evaluation. Usually an Editor will provide it, although it is within the Editor's discretion to make a decision at any point in the review process.
- REJECT: This paper cannot be satisfactorily corrected without such a major undertaking that it would be considered a new submission. Grounds for rejection include such flaws as lack of originality, poor technical quality, treatment of a problem distinctly unimportant or trivial, scientific incompetence, or exposition and approach at a level below the standards of the AMS.
- TRANSFER TO ANOTHER JOURNAL: You believe that the paper has merit but is inappropriate for Monthly Weather Review and recommend that it be submitted elsewhere. The Editors would appreciate your advice as to the appropriate journal.
Methods of obtaining manuscripts and sending your reviews
Obtain the manuscript for review:
Once you agree to review a manuscript for MWR, you will receive an email advising you to download it from the AMS tracking system by entering an identifying manuscript number that is provided in the email. You will be designated as Reviewer A, B, etc. Please include this in the subject line of all correspondence.
Send your review to MWR:
So that your review may be quickly transmitted to the Editor, the Author and other Reviewers, please email it to the address(es) provided to you by the assigning Editor or Editorial Assistant. If you do not wish to be anonymous to the Author, please so advise. If you wish to be anonymous to the author, check the document properties and delete any identifying tags.
-
To send it via email, either insert your review within the body of the message or attach a file in one of the following formats ONLY: PDF, PS, Word, WordPerfect or ASCII text. Word and PDF files are least problematic.
Using another format may result in unintended errors.
- If you cannot email your review, you may obtain a fax number or postal address from the Editorial Assistant to the assigning Editor.
If you wish to send supplemental material such as an article for the author to read, please include it with your review as a PDF if possible. If you wish to send a paper copy of such a document or an annotated manuscript, please state in your email that it is on its way to the address provided to you by the appropriate Editorial Assistant.
SAMPLE REVIEW FORMAT:
MWR-0000 (DJ) Jones
Reviewer A 4/22/06
Title:
Author:
Recommendation: [Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Transfer to X Journal, Reject]
GENERAL COMMENTS:
[Summary of your view of the original submission or the revision]
MAJOR COMMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
etc.
MINOR COMMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
etc.
NOTE: When contacting us regarding papers you are reviewing, please include the manuscript number, Editor's initials and corresponding Author's surname, as well as your Reviewer designation, in the subject line of your email and at the top of the review, e.g., "MWR-0000 (DJ) Jones, Reviewer A." Thanks!
top
|
