ISI Impact Factors versus Scopus SJC Factors

Thanks to Prof. Rene Garreaud of the Departamento de Geofisica, Universidad de Chile, for sending me this graphic showing the comparison between the Impact Factor of ISI Web of Knowledge and the SJC Factor of SCOPUS, for journals in atmospheric sciences. These scores are commonly used to assess the “prestige” or “quality” of scientific journals. … read more

Why do good papers get few citations?

Have you ever looked at Google Scholar or your ISI Web of Science scores and wondered who was citing your papers and why were they citing them? After thinking a bit more about why certain papers on my CV have received as much or as little attention through citation, I decided it was time to … read more

Communicating low-probability events

The authors start by asking, “What is the best way to communicate the risk of rare but extreme weather to the public?” Through a role-playing game where students pretended to be in charge of a road-salting operation, LeClerc and Joslyn (2012) found that the students were more likely to salt when receiving forecasts of temperatures … read more

A note on good research practice: Dooley (2013)

An editorial in the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control is entitled “A note on good research practice.” Dooley states: By far the most common issue we editors of this journal are seeing in terms of poor scientific practice in submissions is the failure to appropriately cite the work of others. Sadly, we see numerous … read more

Prescient Poem about Writing for Publication

Writing for the AMS [American Meteorological Society] George W. Mindling Official in Charge, Weather Bureau Office Atlanta, Georgia, March 29, 1939 Did you ever write a paper for the AMS In a Weather Bureau office without great distress While the sky was dark and gloomy with a threat of coming rain And the phone was … read more

New American Meteorological Society Author’s Resource Center

The American Meteorological Society has redesigned its web site. One of the important changes is a much more clear presentation of the journals and the requirements for new submissions. By reading these pages more carefully, authors can avoid unnecessary delays after submission.

Should quality peer reviewers be recognized by the journal?

I came across this web post and thought this Editor’s idea for recognizing the top 8% of reviewers was a pretty good idea. I admit it might be some work to implement, but the Editor had a formula to do it, reducing the work involved. I am a big fan of this idea for several … read more

Is it OK to mentor someone who is writing a peer review?

Brian Curran asks: I would like to hear your thoughts regarding the review process and young (or inexperienced) reviewers. I’ve reviewed just a handful of manuscripts, so it’s safe to say I’m inexperienced. Having a mentor or two guiding us relatively inexperienced reviewers through the process might prove to be beneficial and could serve to … read more

Accepted at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after nearly two and half years

On 25 January 2013, 904 days from the date it was submitted (5 August 2010), a manuscript was finally published at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Not only was this manuscript noteworthy for how long it remained in limbo before a final thumbs up or thumbs down from the Editor, but it was noteworthy for other … read more

Peer review is like a box of chocolates.

In talking with Gary Lackmann recently about my philosophy of peer review, the issue came up about how much you can push authors to submit to your will as Editor. I thought about what G. K. Batchelor said in his article in Journal of Fluid Mechanics “Preoccupations of a journal editor” that you don’t have … read more

Next Page »