American Meteorological Society


Reviewer Guidelines for BAMS

Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS). Your recommendations are essential to maintaining the quality of BAMS and are an important form of feedback for the author(s). Please note, as outlined below, that reviews for BAMS should cover considerations beyond those typical of other AMS journals.

The Editor in Chief and Subject Matter Editor in charge of the manuscript have already deemed the subject matter of this article appropriate for BAMS. Nonetheless, often much work remains to be done to ensure that the manuscript meets the general readability standards for the publication—including length and organization. This often entails substantial editing and revision.

You are an integral part of this editing process. In your review, you are asked to make an evaluation and provide recommendations to

1) ensure the scientific quality of the manuscript, including figures, and
2) enhance the readability and interest of the article to nonspecialists.

In some cases the Editor in Chief or Subject Matter Editor will pose specific requests about these matters for your guidance. With or without such requests, we are looking to make articles accessible to as many AMS members as possible. Our readers are both busy and diverse, so articles should be

Note that in addition to full Articles, BAMS has several types of shorter submissions. If the manuscript you are reviewing is one of these types, you should take into account the specifics of the submission type:

If you have any questions about BAMS goals and style, check the BAMS Authors page (or request a copy from Some basics we hope you will take into account in your review include

Your input about these matters is vital.

BAMS aims to be useful to the broad membership of the AMS. As the official organ of the Society, the BAMS is the Society’s scientific and technical news medium. It publishes articles reviewing scientific progress and history; state-of-the-art surveys; correspondence and reports on research needs, programs, and projects; and notes on interesting weather phenomena. The Society's other journals are its scientific media for original research papers, notes, and related correspondence.

Please take the above distinctions into account when you make your recommendations regarding the enclosed manuscript. If you feel strongly that, despite the initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief, the manuscript is better suited to another AMS journal, a recommendation to transfer the paper to the appropriate journal is welcome.

As always, your review should begin with your overall recommendation: Accept as is, accept with Minor Revisions (no need to see the revised manuscript), reconsider after Major Revisions (need to see the revised manuscript), Reject, or Transfer (please specify the appropriate journal if possible).

In your review, please furnish both specific and general criticisms and suggestions that might be helpful to the editorial board and author (in revising his or her manuscript). Our policy is to withhold a reviewer's identity from the author unless the reviewer explicitly requests identification.

All reviews should be submitted through the Editorial Manager system at There you will find spaces for confidential comments to the editor, comments for the author, and specific questions to be completed. You will also have the option to upload attachments (your formal review, or an annotated manuscript, for example).

We greatly appreciate your time and effort in preparing the review. Please contact Melissa Fernau in the Bulletin office if you have any questions.


Voice: 617-226-3954

Full Version