For reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
What a review of weather and atmospheric research is asked to establish, and the conditions under which it is carried out.
A review answers one question: does the evidence presented support the claim made? Everything below follows from that.
A manuscript need not be novel or consequential to be publishable here. It needs to be sound, clearly reported and within the journal’s remit.
The journal
- Published by
- Open Access Pub
- ISSN
- 3070-3379
- Short code
- JWC
- Access
- Open access, CC BY 4.0
The assessment
What to examine
These are the points a report is most useful on, in roughly the order they matter.
Method and configuration
Are the instruments, datasets, model setup, resolution, period and domain specified precisely enough to be repeated? Is the configuration appropriate to the question?
Analysis
Are the statistics suited to the data, the sample adequate, and the significance or spread reported? Where a comparison is made, is the baseline the right one?
Uncertainty
Is uncertainty quantified and carried through to the conclusions, rather than acknowledged and then set aside?
Interpretation
Do the conclusions stay within the region, season, scale and conditions the evidence covers? A single event supports statements about that event; a trend or attribution claim needs the record and the methods that support it.
Reproducibility
Is there a data-availability statement, and are data, model output or code deposited or their access route described?
Scope
Does the manuscript address the journal’s remit? Scope is an editorial question — note your view and leave the decision to the editor.
The report
Writing it
A useful report separates what must change from what would improve the work, and gives reasons an author can act on.
Be specific
Point to the figure, table, section or line. A general impression is hard to answer; a located objection is not.
Separate the categories
Distinguish points that affect the validity of the result from points about presentation or emphasis.
Give your reasoning
State why a method or an inference is inadequate, and where possible what would settle it.
Recommend, do not decide
The recommendation informs the editor. The decision, and its criteria, remain with the editor.
Conditions
Obligations of review
Accepting a review means accepting these.
Review model
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Double-blind manuscripts
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Confidentiality
The manuscript is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it with anyone not part of the review, or use its content before publication.
Files after review
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Competing interests
Decline where a recent collaboration, a shared institution, or a commercial or personal relationship would affect your judgment, or could reasonably be seen to. Say so rather than adjusting for it privately.
AI use
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
No advantage
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer’s own submissions, which are assessed on the same criteria as any other.
Taking part
Reviewing for the journal
Researchers willing to review are invited to write to the editorial office at [email protected] with their subject area and methods, and an ORCID iD where available.
The criteria a decision rests on are on Editorial Policies, and the remit on Aims and Scope.
Submission routes
Primary route
Alternative route
Assisted route
Authors must use only one submission route for the same manuscript.