--- 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-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 ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) [Article type] [Community significance] [Synthesis/breadth] [Commissioning note] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```