Electronic Journals of Meteorology

Publishing Research Online

httpwwwejssmorg

bull EJSSM - To improve understanding prediction preparedness and mitigation of severe storm hazards through 1048707 Theoretical development of conceptual and predictive models

1048707 Observational and diagnostic studies

1048707 Operational forecasting techniques and methods

1048707 Historical and biographical studies

1048707 Review articles

1048707 Interdisciplinary studies of risks and impacts including storm damage analyses social implications and economic effects

bull EJSSM will publish research articles research and technical notes book reviews letters and comments on prior papers Papers on theory prediction methods and techniques causes impacts and measuring and monitoring in the following areas are welcome 1048707 Severe convective weather 1048707 Lightning and related storm electrification 1048707 Severe tropical weather systems 1048707 Damage analysis and mitigation 1048707 Scientific documentation and analysis of extreme andor rare events 1048707 Forecast development and verification concepts 1048707 Climatology of andor influencing severe storm events 1048707 Severe winter storms 1048707 Heavy rainfall events 1048707 Pyroconvective storms and fire storms

bull EJSSM Core Principles Open access

Uphold high standards

Encourage participation

Rapid dissemination and immediate feedback

Flexibility in publishing color and multimedia

bull Founders include Dr Robert Maddox Dr CA Doswell III Dr John

Monteverdi Dr Erik Rasmussen Dr David Schultz Brian Curran Albert Pietrycha Al Moller Jim Johnson Roger Edwards Elke Edwards

bull Current Editors Roger Edwards ndash Editor in Chief

Dr David Schultz ndash Assistant Editor in Chief

Dr Janice Coen ndash Assistant Editor

Albert Pietrycha ndash Section Editor

bull Why an operational forecaster should publishhellip More familiar with forecasting difficulties

Witness more of the quirks of the ldquorealrdquo atmosphere

Can identify research problems for pure researchers

Growth as an atmospheric scientist

Career advancement

Why Publish Online

Costhellip

Formathellip

Availabilityhellip

Immutabilityhellip

Qualityhellip

Acceptancehellip

bull Cost and benefitshellip EJSSM = $50 per entire article (to 50mb)

same article in other journals may cost $ THOUSANDS

No extra color charges

Accessory data storage option (size considerations apply)

Multimedia support hosted onsite (supplemental AVI WMV Quicktime Flash PowerPoint Audio)

bull Formathellip Standard Formats =

bull Abstract only in HTML full manuscript in PDF

++ PLUS ++

bull Encourages color multimedia animations and new graphic techniques

bull Availabilityhellip Major print journals = Full E-Journals access to fees

paid members only (for past few years)

NWA = Full E-Journal Access FREE

EJSSM = Full Journals Access FREE

bull Immutabilityhellip ldquoLOCKSSrdquo ndash lockssorg ndash Stanford University

bull Replication amp Format Migration ndash

LOCKSS used by

bull AMS Oxford University Press British Medical Journal Brookings Institute Library of Congress

bull US Universities ndash Hawaii Duke Nebraska Rice Michigan State Penn State Penn Illinois C-U Yale Emory NC State Kentucky many morehellip

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

bull EJSSM - To improve understanding prediction preparedness and mitigation of severe storm hazards through 1048707 Theoretical development of conceptual and predictive models

1048707 Observational and diagnostic studies

1048707 Operational forecasting techniques and methods

1048707 Historical and biographical studies

1048707 Review articles

1048707 Interdisciplinary studies of risks and impacts including storm damage analyses social implications and economic effects

bull EJSSM will publish research articles research and technical notes book reviews letters and comments on prior papers Papers on theory prediction methods and techniques causes impacts and measuring and monitoring in the following areas are welcome 1048707 Severe convective weather 1048707 Lightning and related storm electrification 1048707 Severe tropical weather systems 1048707 Damage analysis and mitigation 1048707 Scientific documentation and analysis of extreme andor rare events 1048707 Forecast development and verification concepts 1048707 Climatology of andor influencing severe storm events 1048707 Severe winter storms 1048707 Heavy rainfall events 1048707 Pyroconvective storms and fire storms

bull EJSSM Core Principles Open access

Uphold high standards

Encourage participation

Rapid dissemination and immediate feedback

Flexibility in publishing color and multimedia

bull Founders include Dr Robert Maddox Dr CA Doswell III Dr John

Monteverdi Dr Erik Rasmussen Dr David Schultz Brian Curran Albert Pietrycha Al Moller Jim Johnson Roger Edwards Elke Edwards

bull Current Editors Roger Edwards ndash Editor in Chief

Dr David Schultz ndash Assistant Editor in Chief

Dr Janice Coen ndash Assistant Editor

Albert Pietrycha ndash Section Editor

bull Why an operational forecaster should publishhellip More familiar with forecasting difficulties

Witness more of the quirks of the ldquorealrdquo atmosphere

Can identify research problems for pure researchers

Growth as an atmospheric scientist

Career advancement

Why Publish Online

Costhellip

Formathellip

Availabilityhellip

Immutabilityhellip

Qualityhellip

Acceptancehellip

bull Cost and benefitshellip EJSSM = $50 per entire article (to 50mb)

same article in other journals may cost $ THOUSANDS

No extra color charges

Accessory data storage option (size considerations apply)

Multimedia support hosted onsite (supplemental AVI WMV Quicktime Flash PowerPoint Audio)

bull Formathellip Standard Formats =

bull Abstract only in HTML full manuscript in PDF

++ PLUS ++

bull Encourages color multimedia animations and new graphic techniques

bull Availabilityhellip Major print journals = Full E-Journals access to fees

paid members only (for past few years)

NWA = Full E-Journal Access FREE

EJSSM = Full Journals Access FREE

bull Immutabilityhellip ldquoLOCKSSrdquo ndash lockssorg ndash Stanford University

bull Replication amp Format Migration ndash

LOCKSS used by

bull AMS Oxford University Press British Medical Journal Brookings Institute Library of Congress

bull US Universities ndash Hawaii Duke Nebraska Rice Michigan State Penn State Penn Illinois C-U Yale Emory NC State Kentucky many morehellip

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

bull EJSSM will publish research articles research and technical notes book reviews letters and comments on prior papers Papers on theory prediction methods and techniques causes impacts and measuring and monitoring in the following areas are welcome 1048707 Severe convective weather 1048707 Lightning and related storm electrification 1048707 Severe tropical weather systems 1048707 Damage analysis and mitigation 1048707 Scientific documentation and analysis of extreme andor rare events 1048707 Forecast development and verification concepts 1048707 Climatology of andor influencing severe storm events 1048707 Severe winter storms 1048707 Heavy rainfall events 1048707 Pyroconvective storms and fire storms

bull EJSSM Core Principles Open access

Uphold high standards

Encourage participation

Rapid dissemination and immediate feedback

Flexibility in publishing color and multimedia

bull Founders include Dr Robert Maddox Dr CA Doswell III Dr John

Monteverdi Dr Erik Rasmussen Dr David Schultz Brian Curran Albert Pietrycha Al Moller Jim Johnson Roger Edwards Elke Edwards

bull Current Editors Roger Edwards ndash Editor in Chief

Dr David Schultz ndash Assistant Editor in Chief

Dr Janice Coen ndash Assistant Editor

Albert Pietrycha ndash Section Editor

bull Why an operational forecaster should publishhellip More familiar with forecasting difficulties

Witness more of the quirks of the ldquorealrdquo atmosphere

Can identify research problems for pure researchers

Growth as an atmospheric scientist

Career advancement

Why Publish Online

Costhellip

Formathellip

Availabilityhellip

Immutabilityhellip

Qualityhellip

Acceptancehellip

bull Cost and benefitshellip EJSSM = $50 per entire article (to 50mb)

same article in other journals may cost $ THOUSANDS

No extra color charges

Accessory data storage option (size considerations apply)

Multimedia support hosted onsite (supplemental AVI WMV Quicktime Flash PowerPoint Audio)

bull Formathellip Standard Formats =

bull Abstract only in HTML full manuscript in PDF

++ PLUS ++

bull Encourages color multimedia animations and new graphic techniques

bull Availabilityhellip Major print journals = Full E-Journals access to fees

paid members only (for past few years)

NWA = Full E-Journal Access FREE

EJSSM = Full Journals Access FREE

bull Immutabilityhellip ldquoLOCKSSrdquo ndash lockssorg ndash Stanford University

bull Replication amp Format Migration ndash

LOCKSS used by

bull AMS Oxford University Press British Medical Journal Brookings Institute Library of Congress

bull US Universities ndash Hawaii Duke Nebraska Rice Michigan State Penn State Penn Illinois C-U Yale Emory NC State Kentucky many morehellip

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

bull EJSSM Core Principles Open access

Uphold high standards

Encourage participation

Rapid dissemination and immediate feedback

Flexibility in publishing color and multimedia

bull Founders include Dr Robert Maddox Dr CA Doswell III Dr John

Monteverdi Dr Erik Rasmussen Dr David Schultz Brian Curran Albert Pietrycha Al Moller Jim Johnson Roger Edwards Elke Edwards

bull Current Editors Roger Edwards ndash Editor in Chief

Dr David Schultz ndash Assistant Editor in Chief

Dr Janice Coen ndash Assistant Editor

Albert Pietrycha ndash Section Editor

bull Why an operational forecaster should publishhellip More familiar with forecasting difficulties

Witness more of the quirks of the ldquorealrdquo atmosphere

Can identify research problems for pure researchers

Growth as an atmospheric scientist

Career advancement

Why Publish Online

Costhellip

Formathellip

Availabilityhellip

Immutabilityhellip

Qualityhellip

Acceptancehellip

bull Cost and benefitshellip EJSSM = $50 per entire article (to 50mb)

same article in other journals may cost $ THOUSANDS

No extra color charges

Accessory data storage option (size considerations apply)

Multimedia support hosted onsite (supplemental AVI WMV Quicktime Flash PowerPoint Audio)

bull Formathellip Standard Formats =

bull Abstract only in HTML full manuscript in PDF

++ PLUS ++

bull Encourages color multimedia animations and new graphic techniques

bull Availabilityhellip Major print journals = Full E-Journals access to fees

paid members only (for past few years)

NWA = Full E-Journal Access FREE

EJSSM = Full Journals Access FREE

bull Immutabilityhellip ldquoLOCKSSrdquo ndash lockssorg ndash Stanford University

bull Replication amp Format Migration ndash

LOCKSS used by

bull AMS Oxford University Press British Medical Journal Brookings Institute Library of Congress

bull US Universities ndash Hawaii Duke Nebraska Rice Michigan State Penn State Penn Illinois C-U Yale Emory NC State Kentucky many morehellip

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

bull Founders include Dr Robert Maddox Dr CA Doswell III Dr John

Monteverdi Dr Erik Rasmussen Dr David Schultz Brian Curran Albert Pietrycha Al Moller Jim Johnson Roger Edwards Elke Edwards

bull Current Editors Roger Edwards ndash Editor in Chief

Dr David Schultz ndash Assistant Editor in Chief

Dr Janice Coen ndash Assistant Editor

Albert Pietrycha ndash Section Editor

bull Why an operational forecaster should publishhellip More familiar with forecasting difficulties

Witness more of the quirks of the ldquorealrdquo atmosphere

Can identify research problems for pure researchers

Growth as an atmospheric scientist

Career advancement

Why Publish Online

Costhellip

Formathellip

Availabilityhellip

Immutabilityhellip

Qualityhellip

Acceptancehellip

bull Cost and benefitshellip EJSSM = $50 per entire article (to 50mb)

same article in other journals may cost $ THOUSANDS

No extra color charges

Accessory data storage option (size considerations apply)

Multimedia support hosted onsite (supplemental AVI WMV Quicktime Flash PowerPoint Audio)

bull Formathellip Standard Formats =

bull Abstract only in HTML full manuscript in PDF

++ PLUS ++

bull Encourages color multimedia animations and new graphic techniques

bull Availabilityhellip Major print journals = Full E-Journals access to fees

paid members only (for past few years)

NWA = Full E-Journal Access FREE

EJSSM = Full Journals Access FREE

bull Immutabilityhellip ldquoLOCKSSrdquo ndash lockssorg ndash Stanford University

bull Replication amp Format Migration ndash

LOCKSS used by

bull AMS Oxford University Press British Medical Journal Brookings Institute Library of Congress

bull US Universities ndash Hawaii Duke Nebraska Rice Michigan State Penn State Penn Illinois C-U Yale Emory NC State Kentucky many morehellip

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

bull Why an operational forecaster should publishhellip More familiar with forecasting difficulties

Witness more of the quirks of the ldquorealrdquo atmosphere

Can identify research problems for pure researchers

Growth as an atmospheric scientist

Career advancement

Why Publish Online

Costhellip

Formathellip

Availabilityhellip

Immutabilityhellip

Qualityhellip

Acceptancehellip

bull Cost and benefitshellip EJSSM = $50 per entire article (to 50mb)

same article in other journals may cost $ THOUSANDS

No extra color charges

Accessory data storage option (size considerations apply)

Multimedia support hosted onsite (supplemental AVI WMV Quicktime Flash PowerPoint Audio)

bull Formathellip Standard Formats =

bull Abstract only in HTML full manuscript in PDF

++ PLUS ++

bull Encourages color multimedia animations and new graphic techniques

bull Availabilityhellip Major print journals = Full E-Journals access to fees

paid members only (for past few years)

NWA = Full E-Journal Access FREE

EJSSM = Full Journals Access FREE

bull Immutabilityhellip ldquoLOCKSSrdquo ndash lockssorg ndash Stanford University

bull Replication amp Format Migration ndash

LOCKSS used by

bull AMS Oxford University Press British Medical Journal Brookings Institute Library of Congress

bull US Universities ndash Hawaii Duke Nebraska Rice Michigan State Penn State Penn Illinois C-U Yale Emory NC State Kentucky many morehellip

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

Why Publish Online

Costhellip

Formathellip

Availabilityhellip

Immutabilityhellip

Qualityhellip

Acceptancehellip

bull Cost and benefitshellip EJSSM = $50 per entire article (to 50mb)

same article in other journals may cost $ THOUSANDS

No extra color charges

Accessory data storage option (size considerations apply)

Multimedia support hosted onsite (supplemental AVI WMV Quicktime Flash PowerPoint Audio)

bull Formathellip Standard Formats =

bull Abstract only in HTML full manuscript in PDF

++ PLUS ++

bull Encourages color multimedia animations and new graphic techniques

bull Availabilityhellip Major print journals = Full E-Journals access to fees

paid members only (for past few years)

NWA = Full E-Journal Access FREE

EJSSM = Full Journals Access FREE

bull Immutabilityhellip ldquoLOCKSSrdquo ndash lockssorg ndash Stanford University

bull Replication amp Format Migration ndash

LOCKSS used by

bull AMS Oxford University Press British Medical Journal Brookings Institute Library of Congress

bull US Universities ndash Hawaii Duke Nebraska Rice Michigan State Penn State Penn Illinois C-U Yale Emory NC State Kentucky many morehellip

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

bull Cost and benefitshellip EJSSM = $50 per entire article (to 50mb)

same article in other journals may cost $ THOUSANDS

No extra color charges

Accessory data storage option (size considerations apply)

Multimedia support hosted onsite (supplemental AVI WMV Quicktime Flash PowerPoint Audio)

bull Formathellip Standard Formats =

bull Abstract only in HTML full manuscript in PDF

++ PLUS ++

bull Encourages color multimedia animations and new graphic techniques

bull Availabilityhellip Major print journals = Full E-Journals access to fees

paid members only (for past few years)

NWA = Full E-Journal Access FREE

EJSSM = Full Journals Access FREE

bull Immutabilityhellip ldquoLOCKSSrdquo ndash lockssorg ndash Stanford University

bull Replication amp Format Migration ndash

LOCKSS used by

bull AMS Oxford University Press British Medical Journal Brookings Institute Library of Congress

bull US Universities ndash Hawaii Duke Nebraska Rice Michigan State Penn State Penn Illinois C-U Yale Emory NC State Kentucky many morehellip

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

bull Formathellip Standard Formats =

bull Abstract only in HTML full manuscript in PDF

++ PLUS ++

bull Encourages color multimedia animations and new graphic techniques

bull Availabilityhellip Major print journals = Full E-Journals access to fees

paid members only (for past few years)

NWA = Full E-Journal Access FREE

EJSSM = Full Journals Access FREE

bull Immutabilityhellip ldquoLOCKSSrdquo ndash lockssorg ndash Stanford University

bull Replication amp Format Migration ndash

LOCKSS used by

bull AMS Oxford University Press British Medical Journal Brookings Institute Library of Congress

bull US Universities ndash Hawaii Duke Nebraska Rice Michigan State Penn State Penn Illinois C-U Yale Emory NC State Kentucky many morehellip

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

bull Availabilityhellip Major print journals = Full E-Journals access to fees

paid members only (for past few years)

NWA = Full E-Journal Access FREE

EJSSM = Full Journals Access FREE

bull Immutabilityhellip ldquoLOCKSSrdquo ndash lockssorg ndash Stanford University

bull Replication amp Format Migration ndash

LOCKSS used by

bull AMS Oxford University Press British Medical Journal Brookings Institute Library of Congress

bull US Universities ndash Hawaii Duke Nebraska Rice Michigan State Penn State Penn Illinois C-U Yale Emory NC State Kentucky many morehellip

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

bull Immutabilityhellip ldquoLOCKSSrdquo ndash lockssorg ndash Stanford University

bull Replication amp Format Migration ndash

LOCKSS used by

bull AMS Oxford University Press British Medical Journal Brookings Institute Library of Congress

bull US Universities ndash Hawaii Duke Nebraska Rice Michigan State Penn State Penn Illinois C-U Yale Emory NC State Kentucky many morehellip

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

bull Qualityhellip AMS - Double blind peer review ndash closed review

process ndash 3 reviewers - 18 mos ndash 2 yrs to print

NWA - Double blind peer review ndash closed review process ndash 1 to 2 reviewers

EJSSM - Open peer review ndash open review process (substantive reviews and replies published too) ndash 3 reviewers ndash 3-8 months to ldquoprintrdquo

Accountability in writing and reviewing manuscripts

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

REVIEWER COMMENTS[Authorsrsquo responses in orange serif ]REVIEWER A (Richard L Thompson)Initial ReviewRecommendation Accept with major revisionThe paper provides an overview of several common parametersindices used in severe storm forecasting and outlines a process for developing proper forecast parameters On the surface this topic appears worthy of consideration but I have several concerns regarding the tone of the paper and the apparent motivation of the authors Without providing supporting evidence the authors infer that a substantial number of forecasters have no clue how to interpret the convective parametersindices they discuss Can the authors site anything more specific than a few vague references It is important to establish reasonable motivation for this work because that motivation identifies the target audience At this point it could be anyone in severe storm meteorology but this work seems most appropriate for undergraduate meteorology students I can only

speak for myself but I found this paper to be mildly degrading to professional forecasters

We regret that you had this reaction to the manuscript as that surely was not our intention Our intention was to educate forecasters not degrade them Our intended audience was anyone in severe storms meteorology as we believe that even experts would benefit from revisiting the ideas in this manuscript In the revised manuscript we have softened the tone and rewritten the introduction so that our intentions and

intended audience are more clear

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

Given the structure of the existing manuscript I find it somewhat difficult to insert this in some appropriate place Although I obviously believe in the importance of this Irsquom not sure it represents a major milestone in the research process Hence Irsquove not followed the suggestion with some lingering misgivings about not doing so

3) Section 6c You mention that scientific storm chasing began with the Tornado Intercept Project that had the goal of filming tornado debris clouds You then mention the use of mobile field observations to provide quantitative data in the last paragraph When did scientists start bringing data collection platforms beyond cameras into the field

An interesting point This is sort of hard to know hellip just what sort of system constitutes quantitative sampling during storm chases I have discovered that the Knights began collecting hailstones as they were falling for the purpose of studying them later in their lab during 1966 There might be others but I might not know of them[Minor comments omitted]

Comments on this articlebull Comments Open Elke Edwards (2007-01-04) View all comments | Add comment

bull Acceptancehellip EJSSM International Standard Serial Number

(ISSN ndash 1559-5404)

Listed as scientific resource with Meteorological and Geophysical Abstracts (MGA) Scientific Commons Notes In The Margin Univ of Melbourne (AU) Board of Greek Librarians (GR) Biblioplanets (FR) Tutor Gig Encyclopedia Universitaumlts du Frankfurt amp Darmstadt (DE) Deutsche Nationalbibliotek (DE) Institut de Lrsquoinformation Scientifique et Technique (FR) Instituto Brasileiro de Informaccedilatildeo (PO) Internet Public Library (IPL 11999341hellip

ejssmorgforums

bull How to publish in EJSSMhellip Download authorrsquos template

Cut paste and edit your manuscript into template including color figures animationshellipetchellip

Upload completed submission

Editors will contact you and assign reviewers

On completion of open review process and acceptance of manuscript work is published immediately

bull EJSSM ndash Current Challengeshellip

Need to publish 5 articles per quarter to achieve recognition from Thomson Citation Indexhellip

Need additional editorial and systems volunteershellip

httpwwwlockssorg

httppkpsfuca

httpwwwEJSSMorg

Questions

ejssmorgforums

bull How to publish in EJSSMhellip Download authorrsquos template

Cut paste and edit your manuscript into template including color figures animationshellipetchellip

Upload completed submission

Editors will contact you and assign reviewers

On completion of open review process and acceptance of manuscript work is published immediately

bull EJSSM ndash Current Challengeshellip

Need to publish 5 articles per quarter to achieve recognition from Thomson Citation Indexhellip

Need additional editorial and systems volunteershellip

httpwwwlockssorg

httppkpsfuca

httpwwwEJSSMorg

Questions

bull How to publish in EJSSMhellip Download authorrsquos template

Cut paste and edit your manuscript into template including color figures animationshellipetchellip

Upload completed submission

Editors will contact you and assign reviewers

On completion of open review process and acceptance of manuscript work is published immediately

bull EJSSM ndash Current Challengeshellip

Need to publish 5 articles per quarter to achieve recognition from Thomson Citation Indexhellip

Need additional editorial and systems volunteershellip

httpwwwlockssorg

httppkpsfuca

httpwwwEJSSMorg

Questions

bull EJSSM ndash Current Challengeshellip

Need to publish 5 articles per quarter to achieve recognition from Thomson Citation Indexhellip

Need additional editorial and systems volunteershellip

httpwwwlockssorg

httppkpsfuca

httpwwwEJSSMorg

Questions

httpwwwlockssorg

httppkpsfuca

httpwwwEJSSMorg

Questions