Editors GuidelinesJournal of Weather Changes
Clear editorial expectations for consistent peer review.
Editorial Role
Editors assess scope fit, select reviewers, and ensure decisions are evidence based. The role requires fairness, confidentiality, and adherence to publication ethics.
Key Responsibilities
Scope Assessment
Confirm alignment with atmospheric science priorities.
Reviewer Selection
Invite qualified and unbiased reviewers.
Decision Letters
Provide clear and constructive decisions.
Ethics Oversight
Identify conflicts and compliance issues.
Join the Editorial Team
Apply to serve as an editor and help shape climate research publishing.
Email the Editorial OfficeRequest InformationEmail: [email protected]
Confidentiality
Editors must keep submissions confidential and avoid sharing content outside the review process.
Decision Standards
Decisions should be based on methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance. Seek additional expertise when needed.
Reviewer Selection
Invite reviewers with subject expertise and no conflicts. Balance perspectives and avoid overburdening individual reviewers to keep timelines on track.
Timely Handling
Monitor review progress and send reminders when needed. Prompt decisions help authors plan revisions and support issue timelines.
Ethics Checks
Flag concerns about consent, data integrity, or duplicate publication. Escalate to the editorial office for formal review.
Conflict Management
Recuse yourself from manuscripts with personal or institutional conflicts. The journal will reassign the manuscript to maintain impartiality.
Decision Letters
Provide clear, actionable decision letters that summarize reviewer feedback and highlight required revisions or reasons for rejection.
Reviewer Feedback Quality
Ensure reviewer comments are constructive and respectful. Remove or edit inappropriate language before sending to authors.
Scope Management
Confirm that submissions align with climate and weather science priorities. If a manuscript is out of scope, provide a clear rationale and suggest more suitable venues.
Handling Revisions
Evaluate revised manuscripts against reviewer comments and author responses. Request further review when changes are substantial or when key issues remain unresolved.
Data and Methods Checks
Where appropriate, verify that datasets, model configurations, and code availability statements are consistent with the claims and journal policies.
Author Communication
Maintain a professional tone and provide clear guidance on required changes. When rejecting, explain the decision in a constructive way that helps authors improve their work. Use clear subject lines in internal notes to support tracking and workflow coordination across editors and assist the editorial office with timely escalations and reviewer follow ups and updates.
