cc: Hans.von.Storch@gkss.de, CR-editors@int-res.com, CR-revieweditors@int-res.com, kinne@int-res.com date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:01:23 -0400 from: Vernon Meentemeyer subject: Re: Draft CR editorial to: Bob Davis Hello all: I am Vern Meentemeyer, a former regional editor for CR. In a few words, I want to say that I agree with Bob. The process has worked and just because some people disagree with the conclusions of the Soons and Baliunas paper is not sufficient reason for a long explanation, or more rules and restrictions placed on the editors. Let's use caution and avoid overreaction. Best........ Bob Davis wrote: > Dear Hans: > > It has yet to be demonstrated to me that there is any problem. A paper has > been published that some people disagree with...the authors have responded. > Isn't this the nature of the same scientific process that has worked just > fine for centuries? Many papers have been published with which I have > disagreed, but I never viewed the "process" to be flawed. Honest > scientists have differences of opinion. That is clearly the case here. > You should know that I know the parties on BOTH sides of this particular > issue and am not taking sides. > > I cannot agree with your editorial since, in my view, there is no problem > with the peer-review process. Otto Kinne has already written what I feel > is the appropriate, and the only necessary, response. You can send that to > the Congressional staffer. There is no need for any additional response on > our part, and to do so seriously undermines the integrity of this journal > in the science community. > > Regards, > > Bob Davis > > >Folks, > > > >if there shall be an editorial in the next issue of Climate Research, this > >editorial must be completed until Monday noon time. It would be about 1 > >page, not more than two. Not much time, but I think we should try it. This > >editorial would also be sent to this person from the US senate who was > >inquiring about the reivew process at CR. I have prepared a draft now, and > >I ask you to read it and come up with constructive comments. > > > >For me it is important that we admit that the result of the review process > >of Soon & Baliunas was insufficient, without "damaging" the reponsible > >editor. We should have been more vigilant after we had seen that actually > >two critical comments were written on the first Soon paper. > > > >On the other hand I want to avoid the perception that we would police > >controversial articles. Quite the contrary, we should be proud of having > >such articles, but it should be made explicit that the material IS > >controversial and that other quarters look at the evidence differently. > >One way of doing so would be to invite comments to be published together > >with the original article. > > > >Obviously, English is not my native language. I am sure that some helpful > >people at Inter-Research will help me to straigthen nout to clumsy > >formulations - but I would appreciate aour help also in this respect. > > > >Regards > > > >Hans > >Editor-in-Chief, Climate Research > > > >------------------------------------------------------ > >Hans von Storch; Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, > >Geesthacht, Germany > >http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/storch storch@gkss.de > >ph: + 49 4152 87 1831, mobile +49 171 212 2046 fx +49 4152 87 2832 > >presently: Kaspervej 2, 4673 Roedvig, Denmark, ph 0045 5650 6760 > > > > > >--------------------- > > > >Draft editorial > > > >Until now, Climate Research had a rather liberal procedure of processing > >submitted manuscripts. A group of several editors operated independently. > >Manuscripts dealing with ’Äúbasic and applied research devoted to all > >aspects of climate - present, past and future; effects of human societies > >and organisms on climate; effects of climate on the ecosphere.’Äù were and > >are welcome. Before publication they were subjected to a formal > >peer-review: ’ÄúManuscripts are critically evaluated by at least 3 > >reviewers. The editor decides on acceptance or rejection. Acceptable > >manuscripts are usually returned to the author for consideration of > >comments and criticism.’Äù ( > >http://www.int-res.com/journals/misc/instruct.html) This approach worked > >out mostly fine, with a broad range of interesting and good articles. In > >fact, CR has managed to become a leading journal in interdisciplinary > >climate research. > > > >However, in recent months the procedure did function less well. In > >particular one article, by Soon and Baliunas (CR 23: 89-110), has caused > >considerable discussion. In fact, it was not the first article by these > >authors, which was perceived by different readers as methodically > >questionable (CR 18:259-275; CR 22:185-186/177-188; CR24:91-92/ 93-94). > >Also the recent article draw severe critique, which was made public by a > >thorough analysis of the results in the Transaction of the AGU, EOS (vol > >84, No. 27, 256). I find this critique well-taken. The major conclusion of > >Soon and Baliunas paper ’ÄúAcross the world, many records reveal that the > >20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic > >period of the last millennium.’Äù can not be concluded from the evidence > >presented in that paper. The statement itself may be true, but the > >methodology used to arrive at this conclusion was flawed. > >On the other hand, the review process at CR was formally in order. Four > >different reviewers were involved. Thus, the editorial board of CR had to > >admit that the formal review rules are not sufficient to guarantee the > >required quality control of the review process. In particular, when > >controversial manuscripts have to be processed, the responsibility should > >not be placed on a single editor. Therefore the editorial board and the > >publisher have decided to change the routine. In particular the office of > >an Editor-in-Chief has been created, who shall supervise the quality of > >the review process and help individual editors with controversial > >manuscripts. > >I have been asked to take on the responsibility as Editor-in-Chief of > >Climate Research and I have accepted per 1. August 2003. An immediate > >consequence is that authors are requested to send manuscripts to the > >Editor-in-Chief; requests of authors to have their manuscript processed by > >a specific editor are welcome, but are not necessarily fulfilled. > >Only naˆØve people think that climate science has only to do with facts and > >truth. In fact climate science is to some extent a social process, with > >many extra-scientific influences. Climate science is definitely in a > >postnormal stage, and we have to make sure that publications are not just > >reconfirming preconceived concepts, or concepts we have gotten to be used > >of. Ludwig’Äôs Fleck remarkable analysis ’ÄúGenesis and Development of a > >Scientific Fact ’Äú describes this syndrome, which eventually leads to a > >dogmatization and stand-still of science. Thus, we need a certain level of > >liberalism. Articles must be allowed to present additional to its hard, > >and reproducible facts a certain amount of creative speculation. However, > >papers must be explicit where facts end and where fantasy begins. > >Hans von Storch, 24 July 2003 > > ------------------------ > Robert E. Davis > Associate Professor and > Chair, Faculty Senate > > Dept. of Environmental Sciences > P.O. Box 400123 > University of Virginia > Charlottesville, Virginia 22904-4123 > > e-mail: red3u@virginia.edu > phone: (434) 924-0579 > fax: (434) 982-2137 > ------------------------ -- Vernon Meentemeyer Professor Department of Geography University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-2502, USA Tel (+1)(706)542 2856 Fax (+1)(706)542 2388 E-mail: vmeente@uga.edu