Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society
bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society
GitHub用于评估稿件是否适合BAMS期刊，提供定位、受众意义、综述与综合文章标准及AMS风格指南。辅助判断原创研究是否应重构为广泛综述或转投专业期刊，确保内容符合跨学科社区兴趣。
Trigger Scenarios
作者询问稿件是否适合BAMS
需将原始研究重构为广泛综述
在BAMS与专业AMS期刊间选择
了解BAMS的社区贡献要求
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society",
"description": "Use when targeting the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) or deciding whether a broad-interest atmospheric\/oceanic\/hydrologic-sciences contribution fits this venue. Encodes the journal's review-and-community positioning, the broad-audience-significance bar, synthesis and field-campaign expectations, AMS house style, official-submission re-check, and misfit heuristics."
}
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-climatefor 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.mdand../../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-hydrologyorwater-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-changeornature-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>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:17
