Papers of poor quality do more than waste printing and publishing resources; they mislead and confuse inexperienced readers, they waste and distract the attention of experienced scientists, and by their existence they lead future authors to be content with second rate work.
In the context of highly visible weather and climate research, published articles that reach questionable conclusions can also contribute to confusion in media reporting, thereby doing a disservice to both policy makers and the general public. Ideally, we—editors, authors, and reviewers—should work toward shifting the distribution upward to higher quality by improving all submissions rather than by simply rejecting the lower end.
To that end, June’s editorial celebrating Monthly Weather Review’s 150th year of publication was about how to be a more effective reviewer (Schultz 2022a). In this month’s editorial, we present some of the top tips that our editorial board recommends to help improve submissions and reduce the rejection rate. Also, the appendix lists some of our favorite resources to help authors improve the quality of their science and its presentation. This editorial is not a comprehensive list, nor does it replace these other resources. Nevertheless, we hope that this editorial is helpful to those navigating the writing and publishing process for the first time or for the hundredth time.
We editors thank the authors for their continued trust in Monthly Weather Review, the reviewers for their essential contributions to the peer-review process, and the AMS staff for their hard work and dedication to ensuring a high-quality issue each month. We thank the AMS Publications Department staff for comments that improved an earlier draft of this editorial. A portion of this research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
AMS, 2022a: Author Information. AMS, https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/author-information/.
AMS, 2022b: Significance Statements. AMS, https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/author-information/significance-statements/.
AMS, 2022c: Dataset References and Citation Examples. AMS, https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/author-information/formatting-and-paper-components/references/dataset-references-and-citation-examples/.
AMS, 2022d: Data Availability Statement Examples. AMS, https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/author-information/formatting-and-paper-components/data-availability-statement-examples/.
AMS, 2022e: References. AMS, https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/author-information/formatting-and-paper-components/references/.
AMS, 2022f: List of Acronyms and Abbreviations. AMS, https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/authors/journal-and-bams-authors/author-resources/list-of-acronyms-and-abbreviations/.
AMS, 2022g: Presubmission Editing Services. AMS, https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/author-information/pre-submission-editing-services/.
Batchelor, G. K., 1981: Preoccupations of a journal editor. J. Fluid Mech., 106, 1–25, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112081001493.
Day, R. A., and B. Gastel, 2006: How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. 6th ed. Cambridge University Press, 302 pp.
Doswell, C. A., III, H. E. Brooks, and R. A. Maddox, 1996: Flash flood forecasting: An ingredients-based methodology. Wea. Forecasting, 11, 560–581, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1996)011<0560:FFFAIB>2.0.CO;2.
Erdmann, C., S. Stall, B. Hanson, L. Lyon, B. Sedora, M. Giampoala, and M. Ricci, 2022: Notebooks Now! Elevating computational notebooks. Eos, 103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EO225024.
Glasman-Deal, H., 2021: Science Research Writing for Native and Non-Native Speakers of English. 2nd ed. World Scientific, 356 pp.
Golden, M., and D. M. Schultz, 2012: Quantifying the volunteer effort of scientific peer reviewing. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 337–345, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00129.1.
Gopen, G. D., and J. A. Swan, 1990: The science of scientific writing. Amer. Sci., 78, 550–558, https://www.usenix.org/sites/default/files/gopen_and_swan_science_of_scientific_writing.pdf.
Huntington, H. P., and G. M. Lackmann, 2020: Stating the significance of our work. Wea. Climate Soc., 12, 645, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0066.1.
Mullendore, G. L., M. S. Mayernik, and D. C. Schuster, 2021: Open science expectations for simulation-based research. Front. Climate, 3, 763420, https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.763420.
Robock, A., 2010: Parentheses are (are not) for references and clarification (saving space). Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 91, 419, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010EO450004.
Schimel, J., 2012: Writing Science: How to Write Papers that Get Cited and Proposals that Get Funded. Oxford University Press, 221 pp.
Schultz, D. M., 2009: Eloquent Science: A Practical Guide to Becoming a Better Writer, Speaker, and Atmospheric Scientist. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 412 pp., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-935704-03-4.
Schultz, D. M., 2010a: Rejection rates for journals publishing in the atmospheric sciences. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 231–244, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2908.1.
Schultz, D. M., 2010b: How to research and write effective case studies in meteorology. Electron. J. Severe Storms Meteor., 5 (2), https://ejssm.org/archives/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/vol5-2.pdf.
Schultz, D. M., 2021: 论文写作、科技交流与审稿: 成为杰出科学家的必由之路 (Paper Writing, Scientific and Technological Exchanges and Paper Review: The Only Way to Become an Outstanding Scientist). Translated by H. Kong, Y. Han, F. Zhao, M. Song, and J. Gao, China Meteorological Press, 316 pp.
Schultz, D. M., 2022a: How to be a more effective reviewer. Mon. Wea. Rev., 150, 1201–1205, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-22-0102.1.
Schultz, D. M., 2022b: The five most common problems with introductions. http://eloquentscience.com/2022/02/the-five-most-common-problems-with-introductions/.
Schultz, D. M., 2022c: Eliminate excessive and unnecessary acronyms from your scientific writing. http://eloquentscience.com/2021/12/eliminate-excessive-and-unnecessary-acronyms-from-your-scientific-writing/.
Schultz, D. M., R. M. Rauber, and K. F. Heideman, 2015: AMS policy on plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Mon. Wea. Rev., 143, 417–418, https://doi.org/10.1175/2015MWR1111.1.
Schultz, D. M., G. M. Lackmann, H. P. Huntington, and M. A. Friedman, 2020a: Significance statements broaden our audience. Mon. Wea. Rev., 148, 3569–3570, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0193.1.
Schultz, D. M., and Coauthors, 2020b: Data availability principles and practice. Mon. Wea. Rev., 148, 4701–4702, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0323.1.
Stauffer, R., G. J. Mayr, M. Dabernig, and A. Zeileis, 2015: Somewhere over the rainbow: How to make effective use of colors in meteorological visualizations. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 96, 203–216, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00155.1.
Strunk, W., Jr., and E. B. White, 2000: The Elements of Style. 4th ed. Allyn and Bacon, 105 pp.
Sword, H., 2012: Stylish Academic Writing. Harvard University Press, 220 pp.
Weinberger, C. J., J. A. Evans, and S. Allesina, 2015: Ten simple (empirical) rules for writing science. PLOS Comput. Biol., 11, e1004205, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004205.
Zinsser, W., 2012: On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction (30th Anniversary Edition). Harper, 335 pp.