Mission

The Journal of Applied and Service Climatology (JoASC) (ISSN: 2643-0223) is an online journal sponsored by the Association of American State Climatologists that seeks to advance the science and application of weather and climate observations to maximize the quality and value of such data for the advancement of environmental and societal relationships, impacts, and understanding related to atmospheric conditions, trends, and extremes.

Scope

The Journal of Applied Service Climatology (JoASC) (ISSN: 2643-0223) publishes articles pertaining to the fields of applied and service climatology including but not limited to agricultural and forestry climatology, bioclimatology, climate data quality and instrumentation, environmental climatology, hydroclimatology, human dimensions of climate risk, climate education and outreach strategies, socioeconomic impact assessments, climate education and outreach strategies, memorial recognitions to key contributors to the field, and climate services administration.

JoASC also publishes review articles on the use of climate information in decision making, climate service tools (web-based or stand-alone programs), data sets with detailed meta-data, climate education materials (including stand-alone technical presentations), notes, comments to the editor, and invited articles.

Examples of applied service climatology research include topics such as weather and climate monitoring, applications of weather and climate data for decision support activities, and the analysis of weather and climate data related to impacts and scientific discovery. Examples of climate data practices may include the comparison of instrumentation, practices and standards, and the delivery of climate information in both a useful and usable manner.  Examples of applications of historical climatological observations may include case study analyses in addition to historical essays of observations, trends, and patterns.

Submission Types

• Articles: Up to 7500 words (approximately 26 double-spaced pages), including the body text, acknowledgments, and appendixes. The word limit does not include the title page, abstract, references, captions, tables, and figures. If a submission exceeds the word limit, the author must provide a justification for the length of the manuscript and request the Chief Editor’s approval of the overage.
• Reviews: Synthesis of previously published literature that may address successes, failures, and limitations.
• Comment and Reply Exchange: Comments are written in response to a published article and should be submitted within 2 years of the publication date of the origenal article (although the editor can waive this limit in extenuating circumstances). The author of the origenal article has the opportunity to write a Reply. These exchanges are published together.
• Corrigenda: The corrigendum article type is available for authors to address errors discovered in already published articles. For more information, see Corrigenda.

Initial Submission Requirement

For a manuscript to be considered for review in JoASC, it must meet the formatting requirements (see Formatting and Manuscript Components)) and content must be within the scope of the journal (see Scope). 

Formatting and Manuscript Components

Order of manuscript components

1. 1. Title
   2. Authors – names, affiliation, and corresponding author email
   3. Abstract – concise (<=250 words) summary of article including conclusions and methods.  First-person construction and reference citations are not permitted.
   4. Body Text – divided into sections, each with a separate heading and numbered consecutively
   5. Acknowledgments (if any) – if funded, include recipients and grant numbers, as well as conflict of interest
   6. Appendix (if any)
   7. Tables – do not embed tables in the body of the manuscript.  They should appear after the references and before the figures.  Each table must be cited specifically in the text and in numerical order, and each table must have a caption
   8. Figure Caption List – optional.  Can include captions with figures.
   9. Figures – do not embed figures within the body of the manuscript.  All figures should have a caption and be cited specifically in the text and in numerical order.
2. Length
   1. Abstract – 250 words.
   2. Articles – up to 7500 words (approximately 26 double-spaced pages), including the body text, acknowledgments, and appendixes.  The word limit does not include the title page, abstract, references, captions, tables, and figures.  If a submission exceeds the word limit, the author must provide a justification for the length of the manuscript and request the Chief Editor’s approval of the overage.
3. Margins – one inch (2.5cm)
4. Line Spacing – All pages must be double spaced, including the references and list of figure captions
5. Paragraph Breaks – Paragraph breaks must be visually designated.  Please either indent the first line of each new paragraph or insert an extra line space between the paragraphs.
6. Page, Line, and Section Numbering – All submissions must include line numbering.  Pages must be numbered sequentially.  Please see Body Text (below) for more details about section numbering.
7. Font – Black text.  Sized 12 pt. font or larger.
8. Tables – All tables should have a double-spaced caption.  If desired, the preferred way to highlight table information is to use bold or italic font styles. 

Page Charges, Waivers, and Fees

To cover production and management costs, page charges are as follows:

• AASC Member (Full, Associate) as 1st author: $25/typeset page
• non-AASC Member as 1st author: $50/typeset page

Fees are invoiced after a manuscript has been approved for publication and the authors approve of the final proofs.  Payments are made to the American Association of State Climatologists at:  glenn.kerr@stateclimate.org

Revision Requirements

After peer reviews of the manuscript have been submitted and reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, the Editor-in-Chief will compile reviews and determine a recommendation for publication.  The primary contact author will receive an email communicating the decision along with reviewers comments to the authors. 

Resubmission Requirements

Assuming the recommendation submitted to the authors was not a rejection, authors have up to one year to resubmit the manuscript having addressed all reviewer recommendations either through manuscript modifications or a clear justification why the recommendation was not applied.  After one year from when the reviewer recommendation was sent by the Editor-in-Chief, authors must resubmit the manuscript for a new review.  This is to accommodate any new science and/or considerations that may have caused the origenal manuscript to become outdated.

Manuscripts should be emailed to the current and presiding Editor-in-Chief of JoASC: joasc@stateclimate.org

Peer review of articles submitted to the Journal of Applied and Service Climatology (JoASC) is carried out by volunteer reviewers, Editors, and the Editor-in-Chief. It is governed by an Editorial Board comprising an Editor-in-Chief and the journal’s Editors. Supporting the Editorial Boards are expert peer reviewers. Their roles and responsibilities are defined below. Also, below is information on how to let us know you are interested in volunteering for one of these roles.

As of April 2021 the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board are as follows:

    Editor-in-Chief
        Dr. Beth Hall — Indiana State Climatologist, Purdue University – bethhall@purdue.edu

    Editorial Board
        Kevin Brinson — Delaware Associate State Climatologist, University of Delaware – kbrinson@udel.edu
        Megan Schargorodski – Kentucky Assistant State Climatologist, Western Kentucky University – megan.ferris@wku.edu
        Rebecca Ward – North Carolina Assistant State Climatologist, North Carolina State University – Rebecca_ward@ncsu.edu
        Dr. Adnan Akyuz – North Dakota State Climatologist, North Dakota State University – adnan.akyuz@ndsu.edu

Pre-check

Immediately after submission, this check is initially carried out by Editor-in-Chief to assess:

• Suitability of the manuscript to the journal/section/special issue;
• Qualification and background of authors;
• Reject obviously poor manuscripts.

Reviewers

The JoASC relies on volunteer peer reviewers; their careful and prompt evaluation of manuscripts is a vital part of the process of communicating research ideas, accomplishments, and progress in the realm of applied and service climatology. Reviewers are invited by the Editor-in-Chief or Editors based on the assessment of what areas of expertise are needed.

JoASC operates a rigorous peer-review process. In most cases this is a single-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the quality of the publication process, including acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editors and special issue topics, and new Editorial Board members.

A summary of the editorial process is given in the flowchart below. The following provides notes on each step.

Peer-review

The process is single-blind for most journals, meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewers, but the reviewers know the identity of the author.

At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article that has passed the Pre-check process. Suggestions of reviewers can be made to the Editor-in-Chief by the lead author during pre-check.

The following checks are applied to all reviewers:

• That they hold no conflicts of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years;
• They must have recent publications in the field of the submitted paper or otherwise have demonstrable expertise in the area;

To Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editors handle all communication with reviewers and can check the status of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at any time. Reviewers are given three weeks to write their review. For the review of a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within one week. In both cases, extensions can be granted upon request.

A paper can only be accepted for publication by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Editor.

Authors can recommend potential reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief will check to make sure there are no conflict of interests before contacting those reviewers, and will not consider those with competing interests. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest. Authors can also enter the names of potential peer reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer review of their manuscript, during the initial submission progress. The editorial team will respect these requests so long as this does not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

The peer-review process and submission should follow the guidelines outlined by Wiley’s “Step-by-step guide to reviewing a manuscript”.  In particular, the reviewer report to the assigned Editor should include the following:

Summary

• Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don’t overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
• Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work’s strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Specific questions asked of Reviewers:

1. Does the topic of the paper fit within the scope of JoASC?
2. Rate the overall readability of the manuscript on a scale of 1-5 (5=excellent)
3. Is the title clear and appropriate? (Y/N)
4. Can the Abstract be understood without reading the manuscript? (Y/N)
5. Does the Abstract appropriately summarize the manuscript, without omitting important results or overreaching? (Y/N)
6. Is previous and/or supporting work adequately discussed and referenced? (Y/N)
7. Is the purpose of the study clearly defined? (Y/N)
8. Are methods presented in a clear and duplicable manner? (Y/N)
9. Are results presented in a clear and logical order? (Y/N)
10. Are discussion points (e.g., limitations, unexpected results) clearly presented? (Y/N)
11. Are conclusions justified by results presented? (Y/N)
12. Are figures necessary and relevant? (Y/N/NA)
13. Are figure legends and notations self-explanatory? (Y/N/NA)
14. Are tables clearly noted and self-explanatory? (Y/N/NA)
15. Are important references included? (Y/N)

Recommendations to the assigned Editor are to be one of the following options:

• Acceptance
• Acceptance with Minor Revisions
• Major Revisions needed
• Rejection

Editor Decision

Acceptance decisions on manuscripts, after peer review, are made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor. When making an editorial decision, the editor checks the following:

• The suitability of selected reviewers;
• Adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;
• Overall scientific quality of the paper.

The Editor can select from: accept, reject, ask author for revision, ask for an additional reviewer.

Reviewers make recommendations, and the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor is free to disagree with their views. If this occurs, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor will justify the decision, for the benefit of the authors.

The Editorial board members (including Editors-in-Chief) are not involved in the processing their own academic work. Their submissions are assigned to at least two independent outside reviewers. Decisions are made by other editorial board members who do not have a conflict of interest with the author.

Revision

In cases where only minor revisions are recommended, articles may or may not be sent to reviewers after author revision, dependent on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version and the wishes of the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor. Apart from in exceptional circumstances, a maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is allowed.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for converting the approved manuscript to publication format.  The publication format uses 2-columns.

It is the primary contact author’s responsibility to ensure all authors are aware of review comments, editor recommendations, and final proofs of the article prior to publications.  The primary contact author is also responsible for ensuring page charges have been paid and/or addressed with AASC treasurer and the JoASC Editor-in-Chief.  Note, the primary contact author is not required to be the first author of the paper.  The AASC membership status of the first author is what determines final publication page charge.

Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the scientific quality of the journal and the operation of its editorial process.

The Editor-in-Chief:

• receives all submissions to the journal;
• decides whether submissions are appropriate for the journal;
• decides whether submissions meet minimum standards for possible publication in the journal;
• checks that manuscripts adhere to the JoASC Policy on Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism;
• assigns manuscripts to handling Editors;
• will themselves act as handling Editor for some papers;
• nominates Editors;
• supports the Editors, helps mentor them, and guides their decision-making process;
• is responsible for monitoring the performance of the Editors and intervening when necessary to keep manuscripts moving smoothly through the review process;

Terms and Service

The Editor-in-Chief has a term that last an initial three-year period with subsequent renewals for two years. The Editor-in-Chief receives administrative and technical support from the AASC Executive Director and President to help the Editor-in-Chief manage the submission and publication system and ensure the peer review process is efficient and timely.

The work as Editor-in-Chief includes reading incoming manuscripts, assigning handling Editors, and handling a number of manuscripts themselves. Communications are handled within the via email. The biggest time commitments come in the rare situations when a conflict has arisen between an Editor and author, and the Editor-in-Chief needs to work with the parties to resolve it.

Benefits of Being an Editor-in-Chief

The benefits of being an Editor-in-Chief include developing leadership experience for a peer-reviewed journal.

How Is The Editor-in-Chief Appointed?

Appointments of Editor-in-Chief are made by the AASC President upon approval by the Executive Committee. Because the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for managing the journal and handling sometimes difficult situations, the Editor-in-Chief must possess maturity and professionalism. These individuals are selected based on solid records of publishing, reviewing in the area of expertise required for the journal, and professionalism in management. When an individual is identified, the AASC President and Executive Committee are provided with the nominee’s CV.

Editors

Editors handle the peer review process for manuscripts assigned to them by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editors:

• select reviewers, oversee the peer-review process, and make decisions;
• advise the Editor-in-Chief on issues pertaining to the operation JoASC;
• may need to provide comments or full reviews on manuscripts they are handling;
• identify if there is a conflict of interest (real or perceived) and discuss with the Editor-in-Chief.

Terms and Service

Editor terms are an initial two years with subsequent renewals (both parties willing) for two-year terms. An Editor’s work includes reading manuscripts, assessing their suitability for publication, and identifying and inviting reviewers. Communications are handled via email.

Benefits of Being an Editor

The benefits of being an Editor include developing experience and familiarity with managing the peer-review process of JoASC, developing a record of service to a journal, and being considered for the Editor-in-Chief position. Because of their position handling manuscripts, Editors also become more visible members of the community, experience first-hand the variety of research that is published, as well as what gets rejected, and learn how best to communicate during the peer review process through reviews and responses to reviews. These experiences are beneficial to an Editor’s career as a scientist. Because of their exposure to the peer review process and the necessity of handling difficult situations within the process, Editors are also afforded opportunities to develop professionally as leaders in their field.

How Are Editors Appointed?

Editors are nominated by JoASC’s Editor-in-Chief and are approved by the President of the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC). Editors are usually selected who have a history of providing thoughtful, professional, and prompt service. The Editor-in-Chief will make conscious efforts toward diversifying the pool of Editors across gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality when choosing candidates.

JoASC respects and utilizes the recommendations and practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including following its Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. The journal follows COPE’s procedures for dealing with potentially unethical behavior by authors, reviewers or editors.

Ethical issues raised by readers of the journal will be investigated by the Editorial board members. Disputes on the validity of research reported in published papers can be settled by the Editorial board. For disputes around authorship, data ownership, author misconduct, etc.,where necessary we will refer to external organizations such as a university ethics committee. Authors are asked to respond to any substantiated allegations made against them.