You seem to have JavaScript disabled on your browser. Since parts of this website are written in JavaScript, please renable it in order to have the best experience possible.
AMS Resources and Response to the Federal Science Crisis
Instructions for Submitting Reviews
Guidelines for Reviewing BAMS Content:
Guidelines for Reviewing State of the Climate
Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS). Your recommendations are essential to maintaining the quality of BAMS and are important feedback for the author(s). As outlined below, reviews for BAMS should cover considerations beyond those typical of other AMS journals.
In your review, please furnish both specific and general criticisms and suggestions that might be helpful to the handling editor and author (in revising their manuscript). Our policy is to withhold a reviewer's identity from the author unless the reviewer explicitly requests identification. For information on providing a collaborative/joint review, please see the guidance on the Reviewer Guidelines for AMS Journals page.
All reviews should be submitted through the BAMS Editorial Manager. There you will find spaces for confidential comments to the editor, comments for the author, and specific questions to be completed. You will also have the option to upload attachments (your formal review, or an annotated manuscript, for example).
When accessing the manuscript, please be sure to open and review the most recent version. (Most BAMS submissions have a Proposal as the "Original" submission, then a full manuscript will be "Revision 1". In some cases a manuscript may be revised before peer review to address small errors.) If the manuscript has Supplemental Material for online-only publication, you can download it via a link embedded on the page immediately following the full manuscript in the reviewer PDF. Please include an evaluation of any Supplemental Material in your review.
BAMS aims to be useful to the broad membership of the AMS by publishing peer-reviewed science articles of interest and significance to the broad weather, water, and climate community.
BAMS publishes articles reviewing scientific progress and history; state-of-the-art surveys; reports on research needs, programs, and projects; and notes on interesting weather phenomena. The Society's other peer-reviewed journals are its outlet for original research papers. Please take the above distinction into account when you make your recommendations regarding the manuscript. If you feel strongly that, despite the initial screening by the Chair of the Editorial Board and Subject Matter Editor the manuscript is better suited to another AMS journal, you can recommend transfer of the paper to the appropriate journal.
As always, your review should begin with your overall recommendation: Accept as is, accept with Minor Revisions (no need to see the revised manuscript), reconsider after Major Revisions (need to see the revised manuscript), Reject, or Transfer (please specify the appropriate journal if possible).
In your review, you are asked to make an evaluation and provide recommendations to
1) ensure the scientific quality of the manuscript, including figures, and 2) enhance the readability and interest of the article to nonspecialists.
Articles should be accessible to as many AMS members as possible. Articles should be
If you have any questions about BAMS goals and style, check the "Writing for BAMS" guidance .
Full-length Articles
In Box Articles In Box articles inform and analyze in a brief, informal mode. The “In” refers to “innovative” and “insight,” not just “informative” and “informal.” In Box articles are limited to 3000–3500 words with 4 or fewer figures and/or tables.
Map Room Map Room features interesting forecast situations in relatively straightforward language. The discussion is akin to a “map room” briefing with good visual documentation, with discussion of models where necessary, but with emphasis primarily on concepts: lessons learned or applications of science to everyday or unusual weather scenarios. The articles are usually up to 3000–3500 words; the number of figures or tables depends on content but should be relatively few.
Map Room type submissions use citations sparingly. The citations are not the linked citation–reference system used by AMS journals and full-length Articles in BAMS; the references are replaced by a brief bibliographical listing called “For Further Reading.” If the author has submitted References in Article format, these will be changed at revision or acceptance.
Essays Essays are based on experience, opinion, and qualitative or quantitative analysis. These peer-reviewed contributions are designated within the Articles section as a “Forum” selection. The maximum length is 5000 words (but shorter is much better).
Essays in BAMS are often opinionated and personal. They are signed and therefore do not necessarily reflect the official stances of the AMS, other institutions, or prevailing opinion. These articles are designated in print by the heading “Forum” on the title page.
You need not be concerned if the opinions are unusual or provocative or speculative. In fact, this is often desirable. You should comment on the opinions expressed in these essays—even to offer opposing opinions. You are not, however, free to demand changes to an author’s opinion or topic simply because you disagree or have better ideas. (We’d much rather you write an essay of your own in response.) We do ask that in addition you focus on accuracy, style, length, suitability, and other quality issues:
Accuracy. BAMS represents the community of meteorologists, hydrologists, oceanographers, and related scientists as a whole. Its quality implies the quality of work and thinking in the field. For this reason, peer review remains essential in several ways. Most importantly, any statement about scientific understanding or operational procedure should reflect the current state of the field. We are relying on reviewers to safeguard the quality of BAMS by making sure that what is published is scientifically accurate.
Style. General statements about scientific understanding may be necessary in this relatively nontechnical format, but reviewers are expected to point out where generalization strays into inaccuracy. They are also expected to point out where controversial ideas are errantly presented as wholly accepted or intuitive. We shouldn’t shy away from demanding honesty from our writers. Since essays are argumentative by nature, it is important that you make sure that the argumentation is logical and fair. In other words, we ask you to represent knowledgeable readers to safeguard not only BAMS but also, in a way, the reputations of the authors themselves. We encourage reviewers to rein in speculation that seems unlikely or ill-founded. The article should be interesting and intelligent. It should also be very clear, even to non specialists and (if at all possible) to second-year undergraduates in science.
Length. Suggest ways to make the article concise. “Forum” essays should be shorter than technical articles with a maximum of 5000 words not counting references, figures, or abstract (but shorter is much better). Exceptions should be justifiable.
Citations. Essays will not reference relevant literature as completely as technical articles. It is understood that authors are building on the work of others, and essay style is designed to present reasoning clearly, without diversions. Still, we encourage you to point out where a reader might benefit from a reference. Even more importantly, we expect the reviewer to warn the author where an opinion or fact or hypothesis has improper or insufficient attribution. For instance, if the author cites an obscure finding or unusual study, it would help readers to have a reference. If the author cites a relatively well-known result or intuitive concept, a reference is probably unnecessary. It should be sufficient if the author clearly states the origin of an idea or finding even if he or she does not specifically cite the exact literature. Some informality in the manner of referencing should be tolerated as long as the text is honest and informative.
Suitability. Essays in BAMS will not be confused with science papers. It is essential that the community can tell the difference at a glance. We encourage reviewers to alert us if a manuscript seems to be in a format that is unsuited for its content. Authors often mistakenly write for BAMS in a technical format when an essay format would be more appropriate. The opposite mistake is also possible. We expect reviewers to help BAMS safeguard against such confusion of genres.
Please read the full instructions that are included at the beginning of each manuscript.
For reasons of timeliness, analyses contained in the report are restricted to previously peer-reviewed and widely accepted methods, datasets, and monitoring techniques. The data may be updated and treated with techniques already published or simple, widely used statistical analysis (e.g. creating anomalies, etc). The report is not a venue for new types of analyses or research results. Sections within each chapter are tightly focused, and summaries are relatively brief (exception: “sidebars” may introduce an event or concept with which the BAMS readership is not fully familiar, and they are written in a more explanatory manner).
For the sections you are assigned, please review the material not only for the scope described above, but also, in particular, please identify:
Feel free to point out problems with the production quality of the images, grammatical errors, or the layout of the document, but keep in mind that a separate round of editing and production will address those issues before publication. Feel free also to make suggestions about the overall structure, style, balance, consistency, and sources of the report, but because of time and other logistical constraints, the authors are unlikely to be able to address fundamental comments until next year’s State of the Climate report. Every effort will be made to correct and revise the report based on your review.