Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. recently submitted this paper to Geophysical Research Letters (GRL):
A homogeneous database of global landfalling tropical cyclones
Jessica Weinkle* and Roger Pielke, Jr.
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, 1333 Grandview Ave, Campus Box 488, Boulder, Colorado 80309
Abstract
In recent decades, economic damage from tropical cyclones (TCs) around the world has increased dramatically. Scientific literature published to date is strongly suggestive that the increase in losses can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to tropical cyclone landfalls. However, no homogenized dataset of tropical cyclone landfalls has been created. We have constructed such a homogenized global landfall TC database. We find no long-term global trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling TCs for the period with reliable data, providing very strong support for the conclusion that increasing damage around the world over the period(s) of record can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to TC landfalls, and adding confidence in the fidelity of economic normalization analyses.
Seems straightforward enough. It came back with two reviews, both with some corrections, one reviewer suggesting publication without major caveats, the other grudgingly suggesting publication to the editor, Noah Diffenbaugh, and asking for revisions. So far so good (you’d think). But it starts getting weird from here. Pielke Jr. asks this set of questions:
As the editor what would you do?
A) Provisionally accept the paper pending a revision that meets the editor’s judgment of responsiveness
B) Provisionally accept the paper pending re-review by the two reviewers
C) Reject the paper
D) Reject the paper and tell the authors that any reconsideration of the paper would have to be accompanied by a detailed response to the two reviewers followed by selection of new reviewers and a restart of the review process
If you picked (D) then you too can be an editor at GRL.
Read the whole bizarre peer review story here.
LazyTeenager says:
September 27, 2011 at 6:27 am
“I think the findings are interesting but not iron clad…….
Tamino has just plotted the FEMA statistics and they show an upward trend for disasters in the USA. So it looks like there is some ways to go to resolve the contradictions.”
Take FEMA results with a very large grain of salt since there is money and bureaucracy involved.
We had a small tornado go through town. Before FEMA it would have perhaps made the local news and be shrugged off, this year FEMA was in town literally BEGGING people to take money…..
The problem is not the paper. It’s the author. He is persona non grata. For asking inconvenient questions too loudly and publicly.
Try using a helpful, young researcher on the next paper. Identifying yourself after publication.
Leif, by chance can you share the ratings from your paper?
IMO, we’re starting to see some “cracks” in the peer-reviewed process.
Some editors are expecting the reviewers to find enough faults with a paper to prevent publication. Then, the editor doesn’t have to make a call.
If the reviewers cannot find anything TECHNICALLY wrong, they have no choice but to recommend publication. Now the editor has to step in. And it’s appearing that no editor wants to be on the recieving end of the critiques by allowing a paper the “consensus” disagrees with.
So they either publish and quit, or not publish be seen as a tool of the consensus.
It appears that some editors are also falling into the “publish or perish” line.
But with them, it’s turning into “publish AND perish”…
climatereason says: @ur momisugly September 27, 2011 at 7:38 am
“…I don’t think people are as aware of their natural emvironment as they once were and expect that ‘they’ will sort things out if things go wrong. Which is not to say that I don’t have every sympathy for people that have been flooded, just that we are increasingly putting ourselves into vulnerable situations..”
A lot of it has to do with graft and bribes to the planning boards. I had to jump through hoops including getting a stamped geological survey map to get permission to build 100ft above the flood plan of a major river. A Good Ole’ Boy bought thousands of acres next to me and now there are a lot of houses built 100ft below me, directly on the flood plain where I saw three feet of standing water during Hurricane Fran
As my Geology Prof said “If you build in a river you get what you deserve and the 100 year flood plain IS part of the river….”
Slight addition to the options:
As the editor what would you do?
A) Provisionally accept the paper pending a revision that meets the editor’s judgment of responsiveness
B) Provisionally accept the paper pending re-review by the two reviewers
C) Reject the paper
D) Reject the paper and tell the authors that any reconsideration of the paper would have to be accompanied by a detailed response to the two reviewers followed by selection of new reviewers and a restart of the review process so I don’t have to resign my position then have to write a letter apologizing to Keven Trenberth.
If you picked (D) then you too can be an editor at GRL.
Leif’s idea that peer review as it is is the best thing we’ve got like Liberal Democracy, is incorrect.
The Editors in fact more often than not have absolute powers of life and death on papers, like Tyrants of old.
Remove the Editors (without usjng the guillotine, mind you) and peer-review will function again. After all Editors made sense when publication space was at premium and on the Internet the concept is almost meaningless.
How does ‘Construction and examination of a homogeneous database of global landfalling tropical cyclones’ grab these pedants?
Roger,I’m an old guy and I would have simply made a few changes that dealt with the reviewers comments and re-submitted to see what happened.
Years ago, I submitted a masters thesis in geology (metamorphic petrology) for about the fourth or fifth time. I had had to do a number of new sub-studies to add to my work to satisfy an outside thesis advisor who subscribed to a completely different theory on the subject at hand than I or my thesis supervisor. My supervisor then passed my thesis on to a new post doc gentlemen who specialized in my area. He red-marked up my appendices! I was a day or two from going to a new job and, over a beer, a friend advised me to simply remove the appendix. I did this and to my surprise, the operation was a success! (I tried to submit this on Roger’s blog but didn’t understand the little box on comment “profile”)
omnologos says: @ur momisugly September 27, 2011 at 8:58 am
“….Remove the Editors (without usjng the guillotine, mind you) and peer-review will function again. After all Editors made sense when publication space was at premium and on the Internet the concept is almost meaningless.”
You are completely forgetting the real reason for “Learned Journals” It is the method used by Colleges and Universities to judge their professors and the way potential students decide what school to go to.
Publish or Perish
Or ‘Construct and examine a homogenous global database of tropical cyclone landfalls’ for short pedants?
D. Robinson says:
September 27, 2011 at 8:38 am
Leif, by chance can you share the ratings from your paper?
Science and Presentation Categories
GRL uses science and presentation categories to evaluate manuscripts. Please read the following criteria to help you decide which science and presentation categories most accurately describe the manuscript you’re reviewing:
Science Category 1. The manuscript meets one or more of the following criteria. If the manuscript falls in Category 1, please give sufficient detail as to which of the below points are applicable and why:
* Important new science at the forefront of an AGU discipline
* Innovative research with interdisciplinary/broad geophysical application
* Instrument or methods manuscript that introduces new techniques with important geophysical applications
Science Category 2. The manuscript is potentially Category 1 but significant clarification/revision is needed. If possible, please specify the significant revisions that might allow this manuscript to meet Category 1 criteria. For example, the manuscript presents:
* Some unclear or incomplete scientific reasoning
* Inadequate presentation of data
* An instrument/method where the geophysical application is not obvious
Science Category 3. The paper is publishable in the refereed literature but is unlikely to become a Category 1 paper:
* A scientifically correct paper but not obviously a significant advance in a geophysical field
* A solid paper with little immediate impact on the research of others: e.g., a routine application of a standard research technique or a new measurement or laboratory method with limited geophysical application
* A good, clear, but basically incremental improvement to existing data sets, models, or instruments
Science Category 4. This paper is basically not publishable in an AGU journal:
* There are major scientific errors in the manuscript
* Essentially the same material has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere
* The technique is not useful
* The research area is not representative of an AGU discipline
Presentation Categories
Presentation Category A. Category A manuscripts should meet ALL of the following:
* Abstract is succinct (<150 words), accurate, and comprehensible to a nonspecialist
* Manuscript is generally well-written, logically organized, and adequately illustrated
* Figures and tables are understandable and readable (when sized for GRL)
* English usage and grammar is adequate, with few spelling/typographical errors (please specify any minor fixes)
Presentation Category B. Potentially a Category A manuscript with revision. If you select Category B, you should give explicit direction as to which sections/features need revision, and extension or reduction, for example:
* Abstract needs to be rewritten/shortened
* Manuscript is not well written, is not logically organized, is inadequately illustrated
* Manuscript needs to be (and can be) shortened
* English usage, grammar, or spelling errors detract from the paper
Presentation Category C. The manuscript cannot readily be revised by the authors into Category A:
* Specific ideas cannot be adequately presented within the 4-page GRL limit
* Organization and illustration of the manuscript make it too difficult to review fairly
* English usage, grammar, and/or spelling errors are endemic and require substantial copyediting before this manuscript can be published (or even reviewed adequately)
Fred H. Haynie says:
“Why not submit it to a journal that deals with economics? They are the people that need the data.”
I agree. As an actuary it strikes me that a leading property and casualty insurance journal should be only too anxious to publish the paper.
“However, no homogenized dataset of tropical cyclone landfalls has been created. We have constructed such a homogenized global landfall TC database.”
Alternatively, why not forget that you are scientists and try to exploit the commercial value of your database?
Dr Pielke cudda saved some time by submitting this to me.
I would have rejected it much quicker.
The paper did not blame anything on CO2, nor did it suggest that he needed further funding to further the research on why CO2 was the cause.
You could submit a paper on why cucumbers have ugly bumps if you blame it on CO2 and request addtional funding from the gubbermint.
The editor wrote:
“Thank you for submitting the manuscript “A homogeneous database of global landfalling tropical cyclones” (2011GL049419) to Geophysical Research Letters. Based on the review, I believe that the article requires a major revision, and therefore I cannot accept this version of the manuscript for publication (please see Editorial Policies for major revisions at http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/Editorial_GRL.pdf).
You will see that the review (comments enclosed below) found promise in the manuscript, and indicates that a revised manuscript might indeed meet GRL criteria. ”
Both reviewers recommended changes. Dr. Calais explained that the editor’s language is standard.
Nobody likes to be told to revise and resubmit, but the solution is to revise and resubmit. You never know for sure in advance whether the revisions will be found acceptable, you just have to do your best. Quarreling with the editor, no matter how justified (and it doesn’t seem justified to me after reading Pielke’s blog), is almost never successful. In the best of circumstances, it takes less time to revise and resubmit than it does to win an argument with the editor — in the best of circumstances, the editor puts your correspondence at the bottom of the in box.
Pielke had a temper tantrum. That’s all. I recognize it because I have had similar tantrums, for which I have been rebuked by my more reasonable co-authors. After revising, you add a note thanking the editors for their thoughtful comments that improved the manuscript.
In his comments on his post, Roger says that the 2nd reviewer gave it a Science Category 3.
As someone who has reviewed several GRL submissions, I have always taken the Science Categories as a ranked order, i.e., “1” is most publishable, “4” is least publishable. When I give a manuscript a “3” science category, I would expect major revisions. Essentially, GRL will only publish papers that can be Category 1 after revision. Category 3 states that it is publishable in some journals, but is not likely to become a Category 1 for GRL.
I agree that the reviewers comments are a bit muddled – pointing out many major issues, but then seeming to suggest that a change of title might address it. However, I can see where the editor would interpret those comments in a negative light, feel that a title change would not be sufficient, and suggest a “major revision” with a resubmission, particularly in light of the reviewer’s “3” rating. Basically, as a reviewer if I give a paper a 3, I’m essentially saying “I think this this paper should probably be rejected, but if other reviewers and the editor disagrees, I’ll accept that my view is in a minority.” Category 4 is either very harsh – basically, “this paper is rubbish” – or it is not an appropriate topic for the journal.
I do agree that the editor should be responsive to Roger’s questions and provide useful feedback. Below is the full description of the Science Category 2 and Category 3.
Walt Meier
Science Category 2. The manuscript is potentially Category 1 but clarification that can be achieved within the GRL space constraints is needed. For example:
The manuscript presents some unclear or incomplete scientific reasoning.
The manuscript presents some inadequate description of data, model, or interpretation (missing tables, figures incomplete, supplementary material incomplete, etc.).
Broad geophysical implications requires more emphasis (e.g. in the introduction, discussion, and/or conclusion).
Science Category 3. Science is sound and paper is publishable in the refereed literature but is unlikely to become a Category 1 paper for GRL. Possible reasons are:
A scientifically correct paper but not obviously a significant advance in a geophysical field
Paper is too regional or too technical in scope.
Paper does not present a significant enough advance in geophysics.
Paper does not present sufficient innovation.
Paper has little immediate impact on the research of others.
Paper is a routine application of a standard research technique or a new measurement or laboratory method.
Paper offers incremental improvement to existing data sets, models, or instruments.
Paper presents an instrument/method where the geophysical application is not obvious.
Significant data analysis or modeling is required to substantiate the conclusions.
Paper is of interest to a too narrow readership.
Paper requires clarification beyond the space constraints of a GRL manuscript.
Walt Meier
Mike says:
September 27, 2011 at 7:00 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 27, 2011 at 7:17 am
!
Many people have worked to improve the peer-review/publication process over the last 40 years (that’s as long as I have been reading and writing in professional journals), and it is as it is because so much work is involved and it is in fact extremely hard to improve. With the internet as it is everybody can put the original paper and reviews up for everyone to read, as Pielke did in this case. But if you want to publish in the archival journal, be cited, be included in reviews, count your article toward tenure, and have your work read by graduate students, then you have to respond to the reviews and resubmit.
Now that Pielke has advertised the fact that a reviewer found 13 explicit problems, every other reviewer who sees the paper will aim for at least 14. You don’t want to admit that you are a second-rate reviewer for a journal with low standards.
waltmeier says:
September 27, 2011 at 10:29 am
Dr. Meier,
Thank you for the information and very objective analysis of the situation. I learned some info (hadn’t every submitted to the journal in question) and enjoyed the refreshing bias-free discussion of the topic.
-Scott
@James Baldwin Sexton
That point is surely going to be reached. When really good sicence is read, appreciated and cited more than bunk and fluff, journals that a re balance will quickly be chosen as publishing points.
To bet on the position that the process of keeping out all research that does not support CO2-induced CAGW is to lose in the long run. It is not a sustainable position – gate-keeping against common sense. Those who are last to give up the nonsense will go down in history as main villians. Look at how carefully and quickly Monbiot jumped from a being leading catastrophist to ‘quasi-balanced’ as soon as the Climategate emails were released. Smart move. He is smart enough to know when the death-knell has sounded. People quickly forgot the outrageous videos he made about the disappearing Himilayan glaciers portending massive droughts in the Mekong Delta. That was just part of keeping the BBC ‘on message’.
The science is in but the message is not out. The Journal editorships are the last outpost. Once they fall to rational wo/men the catastrophists will have to move on to, perhaps, the next ice age or something. Maybe ‘peak energy’.
I once wrote a technical paper (on the subject of Photometry (for EE consumption re LEDs)). It was an invited paper at the request of the journal editor, in response to an already published application note.
The Journal Editor then reduced my paper to absolute total garbage; by substituting colloquial synonyms for highly technical terms with very specific scientific meaning. I guess he thought that “effort” was just as good as “energy” (E). Since such scientific terms tend to be repeated often in a scientific paper; he thought it a little boring for the reader so he selected from his list of a dozen or so colloquial synonyms; one of which was a specific scientific term.
So after he had worked his wonders on my carefully worded manuscript; he sent it back to me and thoughtfully requested that I check it for “scientific accuracy”, and then send it back for publication.
I returned his piece of prize literature to him untouched; with a post it note, that simply said :
“The paper was scienticially accurate when I originally submitted it to you at your invitation.”
They published my paper verbatim; never changed a word or punctuation.
I don’t see what “Peer Review” has to do with “editing”. Let the reviewers write their own papers for publication, if they don’t like what is in a submitted paper.
Hello Orson Olson and “Watts Up with That” readers:
Apologies that the following webpage address is not currently working: http://woods.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/index.php. We launched a redesigned website on Friday and are having unanticipated technical issues with the redirect from this address to: http://woods.stanford.edu.
I believe the program participant list you are looking for is publicly available here: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Symposium/SHS_symposium_program.html.
Thank you, Michael Murphy
Woods Institute Communications Director
Why bother submitting to some of these journals? They’ll simply waste your time while covertly emailing copies to their brethren at “Realclimate” so they can release a nonsensical hit job on it the day after it is published elsewhere.
Haven’t we learned anything from Climategate?
I fail to see the issue, the revisions required are in reviewer 2’s comments: “claims of a new homogeneous database (based on JTWC outside of the US) are grossly over-stated as there is much work needed before that can be genuinely claimed. This is especially so in regard to intensity, which the authors treat fairly simplistically in any case. I would like to see that aspect down-played
It is not simply a case of altering the title, they are also asking that the content be modified to reflect the new title.
“”””” Fred berple says:
September 27, 2011 at 7:18 am
Ken Hall says:
September 27, 2011 at 2:35 am
1 More people live in the areas prone to flooding because they tend to be desirable riverside/sea side locatioons. “””””
Well therein lies the problem; they actually are very UN-desirable locations to live/build on.
Now I have the opposite problem, I am FORCED by my mortgage lender to buy flood insurance for my house. My insurance company no longer sells flood insurance; it is far too risky for them. Hooray for them; but it means I now get my flood insurance from the only place you can now buy flood insurance; some fly by night outfit by the name of FEMA. They sell flood insurance to anybody; because FEMA is terminally stupid.
So I need “flood insurance” because my house is about a mile from the perimeter of the larges lake west of the Mississippi River; Tulare Lake, in California’s Central Valley. Okay so you’ve never heard of Tulare Lake; largest west of ole Miss. Well you see they drained Tulare Lake over 100 years ago, and flushed all that waste fresh water down the San Joachin River into SF Bay, and out into the Pacific Ocean. They wanted the land at the bottom of Tulare Lake to grow crops; which they now do; valuable stuff like cotton.
For an encorps, they laser levelled the entirety of the California Central valley, so you can flood the whole thing with one inch of water; but that is still one hell of a lot of water, since the Cal CV is a whacking great place.
So when my house was built back in the Plasticine age, they put the house four feet off the ground on a rock wall solid foundation. There isn’t enough fresh water in the entire United States to flood the Cal CV four feet deep; well OK maybe excepting the great lakes; which aren’t going to cross the Rockies any time soon. So ok there’s not enough west of the Rockies.
Then I have a water district irrigation canal running across my property so they have an easement on my land. I don’t get any water out of that canal, though I pay for the privilege of having them use my land; but their canal does drain even the rain off my land, so you’d have one hell of a job getting four inches of water onto my land, let alone four feet.
So don’t worry taxpayers; FEMA has more chance of getting hit by an asteroid, than by a flood insurance claim on my house.
As for New Orleans; who but the French would build a city below sea level, and then add a huge lake on the side opposite the sea so a storm could fill it up quickly.
Do not forget people this is the same journal that not only accepted the Dessler rebuttal paper to Spencer and Braswell 2011, but rushed the paper through “peer” review and published it online. The Dessler paper after they published it online was found to contain major errors and not just in his characterization on Dr. Spencers position (which he is changing the galley proofs of) but an error in his data that he is also revising. So now compare and contrast how GRL rushed through a paper with incorrect results due to using bad data and then published it online, to how they state the Pielke paper is refused by the editor because it needs a “major” revision of one word to the title.