Reviewer GuidelinesJournal of Weather Changes
Support research quality through constructive peer review.
Principles of Peer Review
Reviewers provide objective, constructive feedback that strengthens manuscripts and supports editorial decisions.
What to Evaluate
Methods
Assess study design, models, and reproducibility.
Results
Confirm conclusions match data and uncertainty reporting.
Ethics
Check approvals and data use statements.
Clarity
Suggest improvements in structure and language.
Join Our Reviewer Network
Support climate and weather research by serving as a reviewer.
Email the Editorial OfficeRequest InformationEmail: [email protected]
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should decline assignments where conflicts may affect impartiality. Inform the editor promptly if conflicts arise.
Constructive Feedback
Provide specific, actionable comments and maintain a respectful tone. Focus on scientific rigor and clarity.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts and data are confidential. Do not share content or use unpublished findings for personal research.
Timeliness
Accept reviews only if you can meet the deadline. Notify the editor early if an extension is needed.
Structured Reviews
Organize comments by major issues, minor revisions, and optional suggestions. Clear structure helps authors respond effectively.
Data and Methods
Assess whether data availability statements and methods are sufficient for replication. Flag missing information or unclear uncertainty reporting.
Ethics Awareness
Identify concerns about consent, data misuse, or potential harm. Raise issues privately with the editor.
AI Tool Use
Do not upload manuscripts to external AI tools without permission. If you use assistance for writing, disclose it to the editor.
Recommendation Rationale
Align your recommendation with the comments provided. If you suggest rejection or major revision, explain the key issues clearly.
Balanced Assessment
Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses. Balanced reviews help authors improve and support editorial decisions.
Notes to the Editor
Use confidential comments for sensitive concerns that should not be shared with authors, such as potential ethical issues.
Reproducibility Focus
Check that methods and data descriptions allow others to reproduce findings. Flag missing parameters, data sources, or code references.
Citations and Context
Suggest key missing citations when they are essential for context, but avoid excessive self citation requests.
Language and Presentation
Comment on clarity, structure, and figure readability. Clear presentation helps editors and readers understand complex analyses and supports effective revisions. Mention if figures need higher resolution or if tables should be simplified for clarity in print.
