Guide for Reviewers

Reviewer Information

The peer review process is designed to ensure the scientific integrity of submissions to the Journal of Operational Meteorology (JOM). Reviewers have the option to remain anonymous or let their identity be known to the authors. If this is not specified in the correspondence with the editors the default will be to remain anonymous. Reviewers are asked to judge the submission based on its scientific content, clarity of presentation (including correct use of the English language), relevance to the JOM's stated Call for Papers, and adherence to the Author Guidelines. This includes an assessment of methodologies, analysis, results, and interpretations with regard to their scientific accuracy, appropriateness, and proper use. Criticisms should be constructive and objective in nature, so that even if a submission is recommended to be rejected, ideas for ways to improve the research or methods should be presented to the authors.

 

Recommended Disposition

_____ Accept the manuscript in its present form

_____ Requires MINOR revisions; do not send me the revision for a second review

_____ Requires MINOR revisions; send me the revision for a second review

_____ Requires MODERATE revisions; send me the revision for a second review

_____ Requires MAJOR revisions; send me the revision for a second reivew

_____ Reject

_____ Submit to: ___________________________________

 

Additional information may be found here:

EJSSM, cited 2013: Review Guidelines. [Available online at www.ejssm.org/ReviewGuidelines.html.]

Hames, I., 2007: Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals. Blackwell Publishing, 293 pp.