Intructions to reviewers

How to structure the review

1. General Vote

Provide a general recommendation according to the following categories:

  • accept manuscript as it is
  • accept manuscript after minor changes
  • manuscript may become acceptable after major changes
  • reject manuscript

2. Justification for publication

Why should the manuscript be published in Meteorol.Z. (optional - specify a positive reason)?

3. Referees synopsis

Summarise the content of the manuscript in a few sentences (this will be checked by the author; it implies the test if the manuscript can be understood by the reader).

4. Main review points

Please numerate each main review point, starting with 1. In case you suggest modifications please specify the requirements you consider necessary for eventual acceptance. Consider in particular the following questions:

  • Is topic of manuscript scientifically relevant and properly posed?
  • Is manuscript state-of-the-art (originality in theory/method)?
  • Are data adequate, and adequately described?
  • Are text and conclusions consistent (errors in fact or logic)?
  • Is the presentation clear and balanced?
  • Is the English acceptable or is language editing necessary?
  • Are title and/or abstract adequate?

5. Minor review points

Continue numbering and consider also the following questions:

  • Are figures and tables relevant and well prepared?
  • Has the relevant literature been cited?
  • Are there conspicuous inconsistencies in the reference list?
  • Are there typos which may confuse the reader?