BSSA Reviewer Guidelines
Thank you for agreeing to review a paper for BSSA. The quality and timeliness of BSSA rely on the volunteer efforts of referees, and these efforts are greatly appreciated. The first and most important part of your review is a written commentary on the paper's strengths and weaknesses, and on its suitability for publication in BSSA. Please include in your commentary any suggestions for improving both the text and the figures. Another important part of your review is the "Reviewer Form" and comments meant only for the Editors.
When you have prepared your review, following the instructions below, please log in to our online submission and peer review home page at bssa.edmgr.com as a reviewer. You can do this through the link in the email we sent you when you accepted doing a review or by using your log in name and password on the site. Note that, for security reasons, the links in the email expire after several uses or a period of time. If that happens, you must login on the home page. That page also provides you with the option of retrieving your user name and password. If you are having trouble logging in, please contact our editorial office.
If you choose to waive anonymity, please include your name in the "Reviewer Blind Comments to the Author."
If your review contains figures, complicated equations, or tables, then you may not be able to enter your review into the box labeled "Reviewer Blind Comments to the Author." You can, however, upload a file as a companion file to the review. Please see the WARNING ON ANONYMITY below.
Annotated manuscripts can also be very useful for the authors. This can be done by inserting comments into the pdf file using a program such as Adobe Acrobat or by marking up the manuscript by hand and then scanning the pages into a computer file. These files can then be uploaded as companion files to your review. If you cannot scan and upload the manuscript yourself, please email the editorial office at bssa [at] seismosoc [dot] org for instructions. Please see the WARNING ON ANONYMITY below.
WARNING ON ANONYMITY: Word processing files, image files, and pdf files uploaded as part of your review may contain your identity in their property fields and other places. The online system removes identifying information from Microsoft Office files including Word, Excel, and Powerpoint files as well as Adobe PDF files. For the system to recognize the file type, the file name must contain the suffix such as .doc, .docx, .pdf, etc. For other types of files, if you do not remove your name from these fields, we cannot guarantee your anonymity.
The second part of your review is the Reviewer Confidential Comments to Editor, which begins with a series of questions about the manuscript. If you wish to prepare your answers to the questions outside of Editorial Manager, they are included below.
After the series of questions, you may include comments meant only for the editors and not for the authors.
Reviewer Form from the Reviewer Confidential Comments to the Editor
Note that these questions are included in the online review form and are presented here only for your information. You do not have to cut and paste them into the online review form, but may do so if you wish.
We appreciate having your answers to the following questions. At the bottom, please include any comments for the Editor that should not go to the authors.
Select the statement that best describes the paper (replace the __ with an X):
It is suitable for publication in BSSA in its present form __
The conclusions are likely correct, but it requires revision primarily to the presentation (writing, figures) __
The conclusions are likely correct, but it requires additional research or tests to support them __
The validity of the conclusions cannot be judged without additional research or tests __
It cannot be made suitable for publication in BSSA __
For the following questions, delete the Yes or No to leave your desired response.
Does the paper contain new and interesting results? Yes No
Did you check the mathematics? Yes No
Would you be willing to review a major revision of this manuscript? Yes No
If you answer yes to any of the following block of questions, please explain in your commentary:
Does the manuscript contain technical errors? Yes No
Do the title or abstract need changes to make them representative of the contents of the paper? Yes No
Does the paper need improvements in grammar? Yes No
Could the paper be shortened without loss of information and clarity? Yes No
Does the paper use SI units unless common practice dictates an exception? Yes No
Is the citation list incomplete and/or does it contain inappropriate entries? Yes No
Are there irrelevant or unnecessary figures? Yes No
Does the artwork need improvements to make it well designed, clear, and understandable? Yes No
Could the paper benefit from having electronic supplements? Yes No
If the paper has an electronic supplement, is it required to understand the paper? Yes No
If the paper has an electronic supplement, does it have any technical problems? Yes No
We would appreciate a frank account of the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Please put any comments meant for the editors and not the authors here, and if you chose the "Other" recommendation term, please explain why: