bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society)

Journal positioning

The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) is the AMS flagship for

broad-interest content addressed to the entire atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrologic-sciences

community: major review and synthesis articles, overviews of field campaigns and large

research programs, and community pieces such as essays, meeting and workshop summaries, and

policy- or education-relevant commentary. It is best understood as a **review and community

venue**, not a home for narrow primary research — much of its substantive content is

commissioned or developed in dialogue with editors, and every article must speak across

sub-disciplines rather than to one specialist group. A focused original-research result, no

matter how solid, generally belongs in a topical AMS research journal instead. This skill is

a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current

author guidance. Before submitting, re-check the live BAMS author instructions and article-type

definitions.

When to trigger

• The author names BAMS and wants a fit/framing check for a review, synthesis, field-campaign,

program-overview, or community/essay contribution.

• A piece of primary research must be assessed for whether it should instead be re-cast as a

broad synthesis or routed to a topical research journal.

• The author is choosing between BAMS and a specialized AMS journal such as

journal-of-climate for a climate-science manuscript.

• The author needs BAMS's broad-audience-significance expectations and its

commissioned/community character.

Scope & topic fit

• Major review and synthesis articles that consolidate the state of knowledge on a topic of

community-wide interest across the weather, climate, ocean, and water sciences.

• Field-campaign and observing-program overviews: motivation, design, instrumentation,

early results, and the data/resources made available to the community.

• Large research-program and infrastructure articles describing goals, organization, and

community benefit rather than a single hypothesis test.

• Community content: essays, perspectives, history-of-science pieces, education and workforce

topics, and policy- or society-relevant commentary.

• Meeting, workshop, and assessment summaries that inform the broader community.
• Cross-disciplinary contributions that connect atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrologic

perspectives in an accessible way.

Method & evidence bar

• The defining bar is broad-audience significance and synthesis quality, not a single

novel measurement; the contribution must matter across, not within, a specialty.

• Review and synthesis articles must be comprehensive, balanced, and current, with claims

traceable to a thorough and fairly represented literature.

• Field-campaign and program articles must clearly document objectives, design rationale,

and what data, models, or capabilities become available to others.

• Any primary results included should be illustrative of the broader argument and properly

supported, not the article's sole reason for existing.

• Community, essay, and policy pieces must be evidence-aware and even-handed, distinguishing

established findings from opinion.

• Because content is frequently commissioned or scoped with editors, early contact about fit

and article type is often appropriate — re-check current practice on the live guide.

Structure & house style

• Article structure follows the AMS BAMS conventions for the chosen type (review,

campaign/program overview, essay, summary); re-check current article types and length on

the live guide.

• Writing must be accessible to a general professional readership across the sciences —

jargon defined, significance foregrounded, and the "so what for the community" made

explicit.

• Figures should communicate broadly (schematics, maps, observing-network and campaign

diagrams, synthesis figures) rather than serve only specialist analysis.

• A capsule summary / accessible abstract and clear plain-language framing are characteristic

of BAMS — re-check current requirements on the live guide.

• Data, software, and campaign-resource availability should be documented so the community

can use what the article describes.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and

../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the AMS anchors, then cite the current

BAMS page you checked.

• Search the live site for "BAMS author guidelines" / "AMS authors" and follow the current

AMS version.

• Re-check article types (review, campaign/program overview, essay, meeting summary, etc.),

the capsule-summary requirement, and length expectations for the chosen type.

• Confirm whether a pre-submission inquiry or editor scoping is expected for commissioned or

large-synthesis content.

• Confirm AMS data-availability, software, and campaign-resource documentation expectations.
• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and

open-access options.

• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions

win.

Pre-submission self-check

• [ ] The contribution is a review, synthesis, campaign/program overview, or community piece — not narrow primary research.
• [ ] Significance is framed for the whole atmospheric/oceanic/hydrologic-sciences community, not one specialty.
• [ ] A review's literature coverage is comprehensive, balanced, and current.
• [ ] A campaign/program article documents objectives, design, and community resources made available.
• [ ] Writing is accessible, with jargon defined and the community "so what" explicit.
• [ ] The right article type is chosen and any editor-scoping/pre-inquiry step is addressed.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A narrow original-research result that belongs in a topical AMS research journal, submitted as if to a general venue.
• A "review" that is selective, outdated, or a thin literature wrapper around the authors' own work.
• A field-campaign article with no clear community resource, data plan, or broad rationale.
• An essay or commentary that is opinion-heavy and not evidence-aware or balanced.
• Specialist framing and undefined jargon that exclude the broad readership.
• Wrong article type or ignored expectation of editor scoping for commissioned content.

Re-routing decision

• A focused climate-science research result → journal-of-climate (topical AMS research venue).
• Primary hydrologic-process research → journal-of-hydrology or water-resources-research.
• Land–atmosphere flux or micrometeorology research → agricultural-and-forest-meteorology.
• Aquatic-sciences primary research (limnology/oceanography) → limnology-and-oceanography.
• High-impact cross-disciplinary climate or earth-science framing → nature-climate-change or nature-geoscience.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)
[Article type] <review / synthesis / campaign-overview / program / essay / summary>
[Community significance] <why it matters across the whole community, not one specialty>
[Synthesis/breadth] <does coverage + accessibility + community resource clear the BAMS bar?>
[Commissioning note] <is editor scoping or a pre-submission inquiry advisable?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / capsule summary / scoping / data policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if narrow research, a topical research venue>