Guidelines for Review of manuscripts for the Policy Forum section of Weather, Climate, and Society
Weather, Climate, and Society (WCAS) publishes scientific research and analysis on the interactions of weather and climate with society. Articles may focus on a broad range of topics at this interface, including assessments of policy issues. Policy Fora should explore timely issues related to public policy at the intersection of weather and climate with society.
In reviewing manuscripts for the Policy Forum, please address the following issues:
Does this manuscript advance the public debate about social and policy aspects of weather and climate by presenting novel and significant ideas or fresh perspectives on existing debates?
Is the argument well supported with substantiated evidence?
Are the basic assumptions of the author clear?
Is the argument sufficiently developed? Does the author adequately explore the ramifications of the argument?
Also please list (with reasons) any major revisions you think are necessary to make the manuscript acceptable for publication. Follow with a list of any suggested minor revisions. For reference, please present comments as a numbered list and, when appropriate, include specific page and/or line numbers from the manuscript.
Suggest changes in organization that would lead to better continuity, amplification of points not currently convincing or clear in the manuscript, and deletion of unnecessary or weak material in text, tables, or figures that burdens the reader or distracts from the focus of the paper.
Note that reviewers are not expected to rewrite a paper, and that a clear distinction must be made between errors on the part of the author and differences of opinion between author and reviewer.
* All reviews are considered anonymous unless you specifically indicate in your review or cover letter that you wish your identity to be passed on. To help us ensure your anonymity, please review files sent as attachments. *
Reviewer recommendations provide a consistent set of guidelines to the Editor; reviewers should interpret the five categories as follows: