Michael White Profile picture
Mar 29, 2019 3 tweets 1 min read Read on X
I’ve handled the review of > 1000 papers at @nature. Over time, you notice aspects of presentation on which reviewers tend to comment. In the interests of minimizing hassles during review, I offer the following suggestions (a bit targeted to climate papers).
Double space: make it easy on the reader (and editor) by double spacing the entire text, including references and figure legends.
Use big fonts: again, make the paper easy to read. Tracking 30 words across one line in a tiny font is hard, especially if you are reading for hours at a time. Instead, use a font that provides about 12-15 words per line of text.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael White

Michael White Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MWClimateSci

Oct 19, 2022
I just finished reading @nature’s special issue content on racism in science. I found it powerful, depressing, uplifting, fascinating, and inspirational. In the hopes that I can tempt you to check out the wide content, here’s a quick🧵on all the content.nature.com/immersive/d428…
Editorial by Melissa Nobles, @lizwathuti, Chad Womack, and Ambroise Wonkam: racism in science was (and is) dehumanizing, exploitative, exclusionary, and often hidden. Institutions need decolonization, inclusion, restorative justice, and reconciliation. nature.com/articles/d4158…
New Feature by @Melba_Newsome on Black and Hispanic computer scientists. Representation has been and remains low. One result: algorithmic biases. Pipeline problems start young; community-building and mentoring needed; successful case studies exist. nature.com/articles/d4158…
Read 15 tweets
Dec 15, 2021
Ever wonder about the scope of climate research published in @nature? Here are the papers published in 2021 I handled as climate science editor. Two threads. Here's part 2 on modern+future.
Much less than in past years on ice and sea level. Here's 1/3, an exhaustive quantification of global glacier mass loss, with sharply reduced uncertainties.
nature.com/articles/s4158…
Community effort to estimate global mass loss from land ice by 2100, using statistical emulators: looks like no more than 50 cm under worst-case scenarios.
nature.com/articles/s4158…
Read 26 tweets
Dec 15, 2021
Ever wonder about the scope of climate research published in @nature? Here are the papers published in 2021 I handled as climate science editor. Two threads. Here's part 1 on paleoclimate.
Starting with the last glacial maximum: reanalysis of noble gas records (a pretty direct and unbiased indicator of temperature) show *land* climate was ~ 6 C colder than present.
nature.com/articles/s4158…
Then, a data assimilation, full-field reconstruction of global temperatures for the past 24,000 yrs every 250 yrs. 🤯🤯
nature.com/articles/s4158…
Read 14 tweets
Sep 29, 2021
Today in @nature: precipitation nowcasting from @DeepMind. Open access! nature.com/articles/s4158…
We receive quite a few submissions applying some flavor of ML/AI to weather forecasting. Most we decline, because the general point has been made that the technique works, and at least for @nature there usually isn't a case for another demonstration.
This one was different. First because it addressed a long-standing challenge in NWP. Second - and really intriguing for me - is that a key evaluation came from human weather forecasters, who judged the deep learning forecasts to be more useful/realistic than other approaches.
Read 5 tweets
Aug 31, 2020
Thread. @nature encourages authors to recommend and exclude reviewers. My personal views on the strategies that are likely to increase/decrease the chances of your recommendations being taken up ... #peerreview #scicomm #climatetwitter
What to do …
Recommend scientists with minimal connections to the author group. One could argue that your previous co-authors, advisors, etc. will be familiar with your work and are therefore well placed to comment. But I will worry about a personal COI.
Read 18 tweets
May 1, 2020
Thread. @nature has a huge amount of content. Confused about what our various categories mean? You’re not alone! Sure we have a guide to authors, but it is, ahem, a bit formal. Here’s a blast through our various categories.
First, content that is not normally submitted by scientists (i.e. we write ourselves, or commission) …
Editorials. Wide ranging but often we discuss a timely issue and tell someone or something what we think they should do. nature.com/articles/d4158…
Read 27 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(