Me and Archimedes

Last month, Russ Schumacher, John Knox, and I submitted to Monthly Weather Review a paper on a case of banded precipitation in Colorado. Yesterday, we got the reviews back. Two things impressed me about the reviews.

1) Reviewer C was very knowledgeable on the topics we were writing about: banded precipitation, symmetric instability, and inertial instability. Eight pages of good thorough comments that will really help improve the manuscript. Whoever you are, Reviewer C, thank you very much.

2) Reviewer A recommended minor revisions and had this to say about our paper:

Summary: Interesting topic for Monthly Weather Review. The paper is generally well [written] and reasonably concise. It contains a good event description, strong synoptic description, and solid diagnostic analysis of band dynamics. The authors do a good job of disproving alternate hypotheses as well as supporting those they propose. One is reminded of the theorem proving style of Archimedes.

It’s not often that your manuscripts get compared to Archimedes. So, whoever you are Reviewer A, thank you!

I think Reviewer A’s comment reminds us that we don’t always have to write negative things in our reviews. If an author makes an interesting point, uses a clever turn of the phrase in the text, or constructs a lucid figure, reviewers should encourage positive behavior, as well.