2. Outline for Today  Walk through a 3 year proposal example  Received funding  Share experiences in writing journal articles  Discuss how to properly review journal articles from my perspective

3. Proposal Writing – its tedious!  Process will be long, but worth it  Typically takes on the order of weeks to a few months  Dependent upon the duration of the proposal call you are after  Will take several iterations to get things as perfectly written as possible.  Know your audience and your limitations  i.e., balance showing what you know and what would be common sense to the review board  Do not try to propose more work than you can handle

4. Outlining the Proposal  Dependent upon page limitations  Should have the following  Abstract  Introduction to the problem  Related Work  Proposed Work and Technical Approach  Milestones, Deliverables, Responsibilities  Relation to organization proposing toward  Current and Pending  References  Budget Explanation  Letters of support from partners – when necessary

5. Proposal sent in, what’s next  Waiting is the hardest part…  This can take several months to up to a year in some cases  Need to be proactive if you have not heard from the funding organization to touch base and see how far along your proposal is in the system  The review  Constructive criticism will be provided when your proposal returns  Be prepared to trim your budget

6. Experiences Writing Journal Articles  Key points when writing a journal article are:  Targeting the correct journal  Audience, budget, turn around period  Is this research new and contributive to the science?  How much content should we provide?  1 article vs 2?  What are the authors we should include? What order?  What format will you write your article in? Is there a template?  e.g., Word, LaTeX, etc. AMS: http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/submi tmanuscript.html AGU: http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/manuscript_to ols/journals/manuscript_prep.shtml NWA: http://www.nwas.org/digest/instructions.php

7. Handling Reviews  Reviewers will be critical of you work, so what is the best way to handle critical reviews?  How do I go about responding to reviews?  What time frame can I expect the re-reviews to come back?

8. Review Examples I have received/seen…  This is a great paper, but here are several things that are still missing.  After careful consideration I regret to inform you that your topic does not present a significant enough advance in geophysics for this journal.  Did not even get to reviewers in this case  Two of the reviewers accept work with minor revisions, but the editor and the third reviewer give you a major revisions notice  Editor then sends you a journal article on how to write good journal articles

9. Review Examples I have seen…  Reviewer A and C like your work, Reviewer B rejects your work, the editor brings in two more reviewers and Reviewer D accepts as is and reviewer E rejects it.  What do you do here?

10. Reviewing Articles  Typically start to receive reviews once you’ve published one journal article  Multi layered system  Chief Editor  Editors  Associate editors  Reviewers  Any type of editor position is either appointed or invited

11. Reviewing Articles  Read through them at least twice, with some time period between your reviews. This allows you to:  Think about their approach  Consider suggestions for improving the research  Consider professional and constructive responses to the points you might have issues with in their manuscript  If you are young in your career you probably want to remain an anonymous reviewer.