About          Call for Papers          Authors          Reviewers         Search

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, novelty, 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. Reviewers should use the following questions as a minimum standard for evaluating submissions to the JOM and write constructive comments and criticisms where improvements are needed for acceptance:

  1. Objectives/Hypotheses: Are the objectives and hypotheses of the paper clearly stated?
  2. Motivation/Background: Are the objectives and hypotheses of the work motivated by or placed within the context of relevant previous research?
  3. Methods/Data: Are the methods and data described in adequate detail and are they appropriate for addressing the hypotheses?
  4. Results: Are the results presented in a logical fashion and do they offer evidence to support or reject the hypotheses? Are alternative hypotheses and explanations considered or investigated?
  5. Figures/Tables: Do the figures and tables support claims made in the text and are they readable? Are any of the figures extraneous to the paper or are additional figures needed to clarify the text?Conclusions/Implications: Do the conclusions provide a concise, yet complete picture of the work, and what implications do the conclusions have for operational meteorology?



_____ Accept the manuscript in its present form

_____ Requires MINOR revisions; do not 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.

Schultz, D. M., 2009: Eloquent Science: A Practical Guide to Becoming a Better Writer, Speaker, and Atmospheric Scientist. American Meteorological Society Publishing, 412 pp.