Review criteria

Principal criteria Excellent (4) Good (3) Fair (2) Poor (1)
Is the topic of the manuscript appropriate for ASCMO? ASCMO publishes cutting-edge scientific advances and statistical methods. Articles should be accessible to interdisciplinary researchers from statistics, applied mathematics, atmospheric science, climate research, oceanography, and related fields.        
Is the manuscript scientifically significant? Does the manuscript represent a substantial contribution to scientific progress within the scope of ASCMO (substantial new concepts, ideas, methods, or data)?        
Is the manuscript of high scientific quality? Are the scientific approach and methods valid? Are the results discussed in an appropriate and balanced way (consideration of related work, including appropriate references)?        
Is the manuscript clearly written? Are the scientific results and conclusions presented in a clear, concise, and well-structured way (number and quality of figures/tables, appropriate use of English language)?        

Manuscripts submitted to ASCMO will first undergo an initial review by the journal's executive editors to identify manuscripts with obvious major deficiencies in view of the above manuscript evaluation criteria. Manuscripts rated 1 (poor) in any of the manuscript evaluation criteria will be rejected without further review.

The executive editor will send a manuscript to an associate editor with expertise in the manuscript's subject area. The associate editor will either immediately reject the manuscript or select two to three reviewers for full review. Associate editors should provide a summary of the review and choose among these options in their recommendation to the executive editor: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, rejection.

In addition to rating the manuscript by taking into account the manuscript evaluation criteria as shown above, reviewers are encouraged to provide comments to authors evaluating specific aspects of the manuscript. Reviewers will be asked to choose among these options in their recommendation to the associate editor: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, rejection.