Details of task: Short report outlining a critique of a research manuscript submitted to a journal including
a recommendation for disposition of the manuscript.
An important component of the assessment in this course is a critique of a piece of climate or weather
research within the broader context of the field of climatology covered in the course. You will be provided
with a manuscript reporting original research results covering a topic discussed in this course that has been
submitted to a scientific journal. Your task is to critique it in terms of what you have learned in this course.
Your report must be presented in the style of a scientific critique as would be submitted by a manuscript
reviewer to the editor of a journal. Make sure that you follow the instructions and format your report
accordingly as outlined below. The report must include the following:
• Summary of the manuscript: a structured summary of the manuscript relevant to your critique. You
need to summarise the introduction, methods and results as well as key conclusions (10 marks –
around 375-500 words).
• Critique (total 25 marks – around 935-1250 words):
o an overall analysis of the appropriateness, degree of originality, and relevance of the
manuscript including knowledge expressed of the topic, (5 marks).
o critique of the methodology used, data quality and data analysis (5 marks);
o critique of data interpretation (5 marks).
o comment on the validity of the conclusions and how these relate to what is known and other
literature that you may want to cite in your critique to support your arguments (5 marks).
o comment on the relevance of the manuscript’s reference list including references that have
been ignored (5 marks).
• Conclusions – your conclusions about the scientific rigor and relevance of the manuscript and
whether or not you consider the manuscript to be a relevant, original contribution to the field and
should therefore be published (3 marks – around 110-150 words). Include a sentence with your
specific recommendation for publishing: publish without revision; publish with minor revision; publish
with major revision; do not publish.
• List of references – include all references that you have used to support your arguments. You are
encouraged to find at least 3-5 papers not cited in the manuscript that support your critique (2 marks
– around 75-100 words).
Your critique is expected to incorporate additional material from the scientific literature
(journals, textbooks and reference works) to support your arguments, and all references must
be properly cited in the text and listed in the reference list at the end of the critique. Peer reviewed
material is preferred but you may also cite other selected sources of information (e.g.
reports, websites, etc)