What does informational writing look like? This writing worksheet breaks down the basics and structure of an informative paragraph. Use the sample paragraph and outline provided to support your students as they write their own informational paragraphs.
View answer key
Add to collection
Add to assignment
The First Amendment protects your right to assemble and express your views through protest. However, police and other government officials are allowed to place certain narrow restrictions on the exercise of speech rights. Make sure you’re prepared by brushing up on your rights before heading out into the streets.
EspañolThese applications have been designed and developed by RIT Students in partnership with ITS.
Tiger Center - A tool that allows RIT students to search for classes, view important academic information, and download their class schedule in iCal format. Additional features are in development to Boost the student experience. To receive support or provide feedback, please visit Tiger Center Talk.
The following types of contribution to Nature Portfolio journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Matters Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives and Insight articles. Correspondence and all forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
Other contributed articles are not usually peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, articles published in these sections, particularly if they present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
For any general questions and comments about the peer-review process, the journal or its editorial policies that are not addressed here, we encourage reviewers to contact us using the feedback links in the box at the top right of each page in the authors & referees' website.
Questions about a specific manuscript should be directed to the editor who is handling the manuscript.
The peer-review policies of the Nature Reviews journals can be found on their websites.
We ask peer-reviewers to submit their reports via our secure online system by following the link provided in the editor's email. There is an online help guide to assist in using this system, and a helpdesk email account for any technical problems.
In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field, with strong evidence for their conclusions. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in a Nature Portfolio journal rather than the best of the specialist journals.
Nature Portfolio journals recognize the importance of post-publication commentary on published research as necessary to advancing scientific discourse. Formal post-publication commentary on published papers can involve challenges, clarifications or, in some cases, replication of the published work and may, after peer review, be published online as Matters Arising, usually alongside a Reply from the original Nature journal authors.
Details of the submission criteria and peer review process for Matters Arising are provided in the Guide to Authors for each individual journal.
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).
Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique). The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:
Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.
Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.
We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.
When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.
We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether they are applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialist technical point, on which we feel a need for further advice.
Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. For instance, we select referees who are quick, careful and provide reasoning for their views, whether robustly critical or forgiving.
We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.
Springer Nature is committed to diversity, equity and inclusion; Nature Portfolio journals strive for diverse demographic representation of peer reviewers. Authors are strongly encouraged to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other groups when providing suggestions for peer reviewers.
If a reviewer does not have access to any published paper that is necessary for evaluation of a submitted manuscript, the journal will supply the reviewer with a copy. Under these circumstances, the reviewer should send the publication reference of the paper required to the editor who sent them the paper to review. The editor will obtain the paper, paying any necessary fees, and send it to the reviewer.
The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to Boost the manuscript for publication elsewhere. Referees should be aware that when declined manuscripts are transferred to another journal in the Nature Portfolio portfolio the referee comments are also transferred, and can be used to determine suitability of publication at the receiving journal. In the case of manuscript transfers between Nature Portfolio journals with in-house editors, referee identities are also transferred.
Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but they should not contradict the main points as stated in the comments for transmission to the authors.
We ask reviewers the following questions, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:
Reports do not necessarily need to follow this specific order but should document the referees’ thought process. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, naming facts and citing supporting references, commenting on all aspects that are relevant to the manuscript and that the referees feel qualified commenting on. Not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every paper, due to discipline-specific standards. When in doubt about discipline-specific refereeing standards, reviewer can contact the editor for guidance.
It is our policy to remain neutral with respect to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and the naming conventions used in maps and affiliation are left to the discretion of authors. Referees should not, therefore, request authors to make any changes to such unless it is critical to the clarity of the scientific content of a manuscript.
Nature Portfolio journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.
We do not release referees' identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. To increase the transparency of the reviewing process, reviewers may sign their reports, if they feel comfortable doing so. Before revealing their identities, referees should consider the following: (1) Referee reports, whether signed or not, are subsequently shared with the other reviewers and with other Nature Portfolio journals if the manuscript were to be transferred and (2) Reviewers may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other reviewers and on further revisions of the manuscript and identified reviewers may find these discussions more challenging.
We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors while the manuscript is under consideration without the editor's knowledge. If this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after a reviewer has revealed his or her identity to the author.
We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewer or determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities.
Some Nature-branded journals and Communications journals offer a double-anonymized peer review option. Please visit the journal website for information on the peer review options available. Authors who choose the double-anonymized peer review option at submission remain anonymous to the referees throughout the consideration process. The authors are responsible for anonymizing their manuscript accordingly; a checklist is provided to help with this process. More information is available in Editorials, including this Nature announcement and earlier publications related to trials that started in 2013 in Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change.
Several Nature journals (see list below) follow a transparent peer review system, publishing details about the peer review process as part of the publication (including the reviewer comments to the authors, author rebuttal letters, as well as the editorial decision letters in some cases). With the exception of Nature Communications, Communications Earth & Environment, and Communications Psychology, for which transparent peer review is applied to all published articles, authors are provided the opportunity to opt in to this scheme at the completion of the peer review process, before the paper is accepted. Please refer to the journal website for more information on the specific application of this policy. If the manuscript was transferred to us from another Nature Portfolio journal, we will not publish reviewer reports or author rebuttals of versions of the manuscript considered by the originating Nature Portfolio journal. The peer review file is published online as a supplementary peer review file. Although we hope that the peer review files will provide a detailed and useful view into our peer review process, it is important to note that these files will not contain all the information considered in the editorial decision making process, such as the discussions between editors or any confidential comments made by reviewers or authors to the editors.
List of journals offering transparent peer review: Nature, Nature Communications, Communications Biology, Communications Chemistry, Communications Physics, Communications Earth & Environment, Communications Materials, Communications Medicine, Communications Psychology, Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Cell Biology, Nature Ecology & Evolution, Nature Human Behaviour, Nature Immunology, Nature Microbiology and Nature Structural & Molecular Biology.
As a matter of policy, we do not suppress reviewers' reports; any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what we may think of the content. On rare occasions, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause needless offence; conversely, we strongly encourage reviewers to state plainly their opinion of a paper. Authors should recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are expressed in robust language.
It is editors' experience that the peer-review process is an essential part of the publication process, which improves the manuscripts our journals publish. Not only does peer review provide an independent assessment of the importance and technical accuracy of the results described, but the feedback from referees conveyed to authors with the editors' advice frequently results in manuscripts being refined so that their structure and logic is more readily apparent to readers.
Nature Portfolio journals are appreciative of its peer-reviewers, of whom there are many tens of thousands. It is only by collaboration with our reviewers that editors can ensure that the manuscripts we publish are among the most important in their disciplines of scientific research. We appreciate the time that reviewers devote to assessing the manuscripts we send them, which helps ensure that Nature Portfolio journals publish only material of the very highest quality. In particular, many submitted manuscripts contain large volumes of additional (supplementary) data and other material, which take time to evaluate. We thank our reviewers for their continued commitment to our publication process.
Much has been written, in Nature Portfolio journals and elsewhere, on the peer-review system as a whole. Alternative systems have been proposed in outline: for example, signed peer-review, anonymized peer-review and open peer review. The system has been exhaustively studied, reported on, and assessed -- both positively and negatively.
Nature Portfolio journals' position on the value of the peer-review system is represented in the following extract from an editorial in Nature Immunology.
The goals of peer review are both lofty and mundane. It is the responsibility of journals to administer an effective review system. Peer review is designed to select technically valid research of significant interest. Referees are expected to identify flaws, suggest improvements and assess novelty. If the manuscript is deemed important enough to be published in a high visibility journal, referees ensure that it is internally consistent, thereby ferreting out spurious conclusions or clumsy frauds.
One problem with manuscript selection is the inherent tension between referees and authors. Referees wish for only the most solid science to be published, yet when they 'switch hats' to that of author, they desire quick publication of their novel ideas and approaches. Authors of papers that blow against the prevailing winds bear a far greater burden of proof than normally expected in publishing their challenge to the current paradigm. Veering too far in one direction or the other leads to complaints either that peer review isn't stringent enough, or that it is stifling the freshest research. It is the job of the editors to try to avoid both extremes.
Journal editors do not expect peer review to ferret out cleverly concealed, deliberate deceptions. A peer reviewer can only evaluate what the authors chose to include in the manuscript. This contrasts with the expectation in the popular press that peer review is a process by which fraudulent data is detected before publication (although that sometimes happens).
We are continually impressed with peer review's positive impact on almost every paper we publish. Even papers that are misunderstood by reviewers are usually rewritten and improved before resubmission. Mistakes are made, but peer review, through conscientious effort on the part of referees, helps to protect the literature, promote good science and select the best. Until a truly viable alternative is provided, we wouldn't have it any other way.
The full text of this editorial is available through Nature Immunology.
In 2006, Nature published a comprehensive web focus on the peer review system. All articles in this focus are open for readers' comments via a link at the end of each article.
All contributions submitted to Nature Portfolio journals that are selected for peer review are sent to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals or laboratories. The journal sympathetically considers such requests and usually honours them, but the editor's decision on the choice of referees is final.
Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Unless otherwise declared as a part of open peer review, the peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; identities of reviewers are not released. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts. If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report. Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is eventually published, correspondence with the journal, referees' reports and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed or otherwise publicised without prior written consent. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, certain to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.
Nature Portfolio reserves the right to contact funders, regulatory bodies, journals and the authors’ institutions in cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct.
Nature Portfolio journal editors may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues or issues of data or materials access. Very occasionally, concerns may also relate to the implications to society of publishing a paper, including threats to security. In such circumstances, advice will usually be sought simultaneously with the technical peer-review process. As in all publishing decisions, the ultimate decision whether to publish is the responsibility of the editor of the journal concerned.
Our most exact editorials on peer review
About the peer review process
Excellence in peer review
Authors and peer review
Double-anonymized peer review
Open peer review
The Samsonite Outline Pro Carry-On Spinner is part of the Luggage test program at Consumer Reports. In our lab tests, Carry-On Luggage models like the Outline Pro Carry-On Spinner are rated on multiple criteria, such as those listed below.
Usability An evaluation of the ease of opening, closing, and loading of the piece of luggage. Attention was also focused on the function of internal zippers and straps used to properly secure items, as well as the use and function of the telescopic handle.
Impact resistance A measure of the piece of luggage's ability to resist damage from being dropped, pulled or having other items dropped onto it.
Carrying and pulling A measure of how a piece of luggage performs during various carrying and pulling tasks.
TAMPA — City staff unveiled a new service Tuesday dedicated to assisting Tampa renters navigate a housing affordability crisis that shows few signs of abating.
“Whether they are having trouble finding a unit within their budget, landlords who are willing to accept tenants with a prior eviction, or need to ask a housing related question, but do not know who to turn to, residents are encouraged to reach out to our new Tenant Services Team,” Mayor Jane Castor said in a statement. “Serving as the frontlines, this new team is providing valuable guidance, insight, and more importantly, solutions.”
The team is comprised of two employees, serving as a resource guide for renters within city limits.
“One of the biggest questions we get is: Where is there an affordable unit?” Director of Housing and Community Development Kayon Henderson said at a Tuesday news conference. The team manages a database of landlords with available units, as well monitors a patchwork of city-operated and external housing assistance programs to point residents toward, she said.
Last spring, residents poured into council meetings, pleading for relief from spiraling rents, relaying the realities of deplorable living conditions and sharing fears of being pushed out of the city.
Last June, City Council members unanimously approved asking the mayor to create a $400,000, two-person tenant advocacy office to help residents affected by ballooning housing costs, modeled on a similar program in Miami-Dade County.
Though initially noncommittal on the idea of the advocacy office, less than a week later Castor announced the launch of a housing information hotline to offer guidance. The city called in emergency staff who are tapped to offer support during hurricanes to field calls while they went through the process of hiring about a dozen temporary workers.
“We essentially activated our emergency operations that are usually used for storms to respond to the housing crisis,” Administrator of Development and Economic Opportunity Nicole Travis said in a exact interview. “It was real time triage.”
Over the first six months, staff answered more than 2,300 calls, according to city data, though call volumes subsequently plummeted. This January, on average, the hotline received a call a day.
The newly created Tenant Services Team absorbed the hotline last month, fielding calls from 51 people in its first week.
City Council member Guido Maniscalco, who led the effort to create an advocacy office, called the launch of the Tennant Services Team “welcome news.”
Subscribe to our free Tampa Times newsletter
You’ll get a roundup of the biggest Tampa community news twice a week.
Loading...
Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.
Explore all your optionsHe had argued that having a centralized resource for residents to seek guidance would help them locate resources more quickly and efficiently.
“This new team meets those goals,” he said Tuesday. “This situation is not getting better. We’re doing what we can.”
Since 2018, rent has spiked 38% in Tampa and 36% in St. Petersburg, according to data from the real estate firm CoStar.
Bianca Ferdinand, one of the tenant advocacy specialists fielding calls, knows the difficulty of navigating Tampa’s rental market firsthand. Originally from Maryland, she lived out of a hotel for 10 months after moving to Florida, struggling to find a home of her own.
Now, she strives to be a source of comfort and guidance for others through the phone.
“I get at least two breakdowns a day,“ she said. “There is a level of desperation, of just being overwhelmed.”
To reach the Tenant Services Team, residents can dial (813) 307-5555, the same number as the Housing Information Line, Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The Tampa Bay Times has a team of reporters focusing on rising costs in our region. If you have an idea, question or story to tell, please email us at costofliving@tampabay.com.
NEED HOUSING HELP? Here are housing resources in Tampa Bay.
WATCH OUT FOR SCAMS: Here’s how to fact-check rental listings.
STAYED UPDATED: Sign up for our free weekly Business by the Bay newsletter, featuring insights on the economy, real estate and local businesses.
Steven Armes, University of Sheffield, UK
Remzi Becer, University of Warwick, UK
Matthew Becker, Duke University, USA
Erik Berda, University of New Hampshire, USA
Kerstin Blank, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Germany
Eva Blasco, Heidelberg University, Germany
James Blinco, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Chris Bowman, University of Colorado, USA
Cyrille Boyer, University of New South Wales, Australia
Neil Cameron, Monash University, Australia
Luis Campos, Columbia University, USA
Changle Chen, University of Science & Technology of China, China
Mao Chen, Fudan University, China
Xuesi Chen, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Yoshiki Chujo, Kyoto University, Japan
Franck D'Agosto, CNRS-University of Lyon, France
Priyadarsi De, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, India
Guillaume Delaittre, University of Wuppertal, Germany
Dagmar D'hooge, University of Ghent, Belgium
Elizabeth Elacqua, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Brett P Fors, Cornell University, USA
Theoni Georgiou, Imperial College London, UK
Didier Gigmes, Aix-Marseilles Université, CNRS, France
Atsushi Goto, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Sophie Guillaume, Institut des Sciences Chimiques de Rennes, France
Dave Haddleton, University of Warwick, UK
Nikos Hadjichristidis, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia
Yanchun Han, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Simon Harrisson, CNRS, University of Toulouse, France
Eva Marie Harth, University of Houston, USA
Laura Hartmann, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany
Fiona Hatton, Loughborough University, UK
Andrew B Holmes, University of Melbourne, Australia
Richard Hoogenboom, University of Ghent, Belgium
Steve Howdle, University of Nottingham, UK
Feihe Huang, Zheijiang University, China
Toyoji Kakuchi, Changchun University of Science and Technology, China
Julia Kalow, Northwestern University, USA
Masami Kamigaito, Nagoya University, Japan
Justin Kennemur, Florida State University, USA
Christopher Kloxin, University of Delaware, USA
Dominik Konkolewicz, Miami University, USA
Jacques Lalevée, Institut de Science des Matériaux de Mulhouse, France
Katharina Landfester, Max Planck Institute, Germany
Muriel Lansalot, Université Lyon, France
Sebastien Lecommandoux, ENSCPB, University of Bordeaux, France
Rachel A. Letteri, University of Virginia, USA
Guey-Sheng Liou, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Guoliang Liu, Virginia Tech, USA
Shiyong Liu, University of Science & Technology, China
Timothy Long, Arizona State University, USA
Christine K Luscombe, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, Japan
Ian Manners, University of Victoria, Canada
John Matson, Virginia Tech, USA
Markus Muellner, University of Sydney, Australia
Ravin Narain, University of Alberta, Canada
Julien Nicolas, University Paris-Sud, France
Kyoko Nozaki, University of Tokyo, Japan
Rachel O'Reilly, University of Warwick, UK
Makoto Ouchi, Kyoto University, Japan
Derek Patton, University of Southern Mississippi, USA
Theresa Reineke, University of Minnesota, USA
Megan Robertson, University of Houston, USA
Amitav Sanyal, Bogazici University, Turkey
Felix Schacher, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Germany
Helmut Schlaad, University of Potsdam, Germany
Ellen Sletten, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
Martina Stenzel, University of New South Wales, Australia
Molly Stevens, Imperial College London, UK
Nathalie Stingelin, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Ben Zhong Tang, HKUST, Hong Kong, China
Lei Tao, Tsinghua University, China
Patrick Theato, KIT, Germany
Maria Vamvakaki, FORTH-IESL, Greece
Jan van Hest, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Kelly Velonia, University of Crete, Greece
María J. Vicent, CIPF, Spain
Brigitte Voit, Leibniz Institute of Polymer Research, Germany
Marcus Weck, NYU, USA
Charlotte Williams, University of Oxford, UK
Frederik Wurm, Max-Planck-Institut für Polymerforschung, Germany
Yusuf Yagci, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey
Naoko Yoshie, University of Tokyo, Japan
Wei You, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
Xi Zhang, Tsinghua University, China
"The mix of industry news, project info and reports produces interesting business opportunities in the main countries of the growing region & economy and to be up to date with the events."
James Lee Stancampiano - Head of Power Generation Chile & Argentina."BNamericas has become my source for information and news to support decisions and plans."
Jaime Soto - Director of Sales and Business Development Komatsu"The team at BNAmericas is always available to answer any of my questions pertaining to their published reports. Further, the platform is easy to navigate and very user friendly."
Jim Collins - Senior Director of Energy Markets at Microsoft"At a corporate level, SMBC has come to depend on BNamericas as it is a valuable resource to which to turn for daily intelligence information and monitoring of projects in the region."
Carl Adams - Executive Officer and Deputy Head of the Americas at SMBC"We’re pleased to use BNamericas’ services and count on their valuable information to complement our environment monitoring and business intelligence."
Beatriz Elena López Valencia - Strategy and Risk Specialist at ISA"I’ve been using the BNamericas tool for a couple of years and have found it to be extremely useful and efficient in comprehensively aggregating the most relevant industry news under one roof."
Carlos Barrera - CEO Atlas Renewable Energy"We have been subscribers for the last three years. We use the projects database extensively and found it very useful. We also value the interactions with the BNamericas team in terms of their intimate knowledge of the markets in region."
Mark Wainwright - Managing Director - Natural Resources at Turner & TownsendCaley Thistle Women and Westdyke are gearing up for the SWF Championship season which begins on Sunday.
The Caley Jags kick-off their campaign with a trip to Greenock Morton, while the Westhill outfit, who won promotion from SWF League One via the play-offs, travel to Edinburgh to face Hutchison Vale.
And Inverness boss Karen Mason believes her side must embrace consistency if they are to build on last season’s fifth-place finish in the Scottish third-tier.
She said: “We know that the league is probably the most competitive there is in Scotland. Last season we saw every team can beat anyone at any given time.
“We’re going to have to make sure we’re on our game and not gifting any of these teams any opportunities to take points off of us. If we see any weaknesses then we need to punish them.
“We’re not going to be inconsistent this season – you’re going to know what you’re going to get from us.”
The Caley Thistle players have set the bar high for themselves already, while Mason expects her side to be challenging throughout the entire campaign.
She added: “The girls have said they want to be finishing in the top two at least and want to be fighting for promotion.
“We want to Boost on where we finished last year and definitely want to be competing with the top four. If we can push on to the promotion places then great, but our target is to be challenging in the top half throughout the season.”
Meanwhile, acting Westdyke head coach Steve Robb believes his side are ready for the step up following promotion from the fourth-tier.
Ahead of the Championship season, the Westhill outfit have signed forward Emily Dalgetty – who last played for Montrose – and former Aberdeen Ladies goalkeeper Kirsten Pratt, with other new recruits in the pipeline.
Robb said: “Gaining promotion to the Championship was a fantastic achievement as the games were very competitive, especially in the top-half of the table after the league split.
“We are looking forward to the season ahead and facing teams we have not encountered before which in itself brings new challenges for the team as well as great opportunities for the players to show their own abilities.
“I’m looking forward to continuing to blend the youth players into the senior squad.
“We have an excellent pathway with a number of young players having made their senior debuts last season, so that is something we are passionate about continuing.
“I’m optimistic that with the hard work we’ve done over the last three years, this team can continue to develop.
“We already had a strong squad and we’ve recruited well this summer, so we’re hoping for a positive season ahead.”
The SWFL North returned last week with Dyce, Inverurie Locos and Grampian starting the season with wins over Dryburgh Athletic, Stonehaven and Buchan, respectively.
This week the north clubs are in SWFL Cup action, with the first round group fixtures being: Buchan v Grampian, Inverurie Locos v Elgin City, Arbroath v Westdyke Thistle, and Dryburgh Athletic v Huntly.
