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.
Keith W. says:
September 27, 2011 at 10:34 pm
He wrote to the editors to specifically find out what revisions he needed to make in order for the paper to be published, and the editors were unable to answer that question.
It is usually not the editor’s task to suggest what improvements the author needs to make. That is for the reviewer. The editor relies on reviewers for this and it is irrelevant what the editor is able or unable to do. The Chief Editor responded: “After consulting again with my editor for Climate, I believe that the additional work needed to address the reviewer’s comments are beyond minor revisions. Given the significant changes expected, a revised version of your paper would need to be reviewed again. Hence the decision to reject and encourage resubmission. Again, this is a fairly common procedure at GRL.” It is GRL’s policy [now] to reject a paper that requires changes beyond ‘minor revision’, and to suggest resubmission if the paper ‘has promise’. The proper thing to do for an author in such a case is to work in whatever changes he thinks will mollify the reviewer. The author cannot expect that the editor will tell him how to rewrite the paper. In extreme cases, the author can always ask for another reviewer [as in my case]. All this is standard practice under which everybody must labor.
Leif Svalgaard sorry how can they make changes if if will not or cannot tell them what changes need to be made ? Surely if the issues was ‘major’ they logic would suggest it should be easy to outline. And it was not the reviewer that turned it do for publication, they actual recommended, by the editor who refuses to say why.
@”Rational debate”, TedK, John + others
“I’m sorry, but a single word addition for a title change – which is acceptable to the authors – can hardly be called a ‘major revision’ in much of anyone’s book”.
“Richard Tol, GRL claim this paper need ‘major revisions’ but simply cannot explain what they are beyond a word change , which is hardly ‘major’ in anyone’s language”
As far as I know, most journals do indeed consider a suggested change in the title of any manuscript (that goes beyond simple typos or such) a “major revision”. I recently had an exactly similar review from the journal “Mycological progress” – fine and straightforward reviews, both agreed that our paper was publishable but one reviewer suggested changing the title as he thought it was not clear which group of organisms we drew our conclusions about. The final verdict from the editor was “Major revisions needed”.
And adding “towards” certainly is quite an important change – do you have a homogenous database on tropical cyclones showing a clear trend (or a lack thereof), or are you merely trying to move towards this desirable goal and presenting some preliminary results? I am having trouble understanding how any honest reading of this could lead to different conclusions.
GRL´s policy in such cases is clearly stated previously in the link supplied by Diffenbaugh “( Editorial Policies for major revisions at http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/Editorial_GRL.pdf)”:
“……manuscripts are routinely declined if the reviews point to a need for additional analyses, simulations, or other significant changes to support purported high-impact results or implications. However, for those submissions that show promise of reaching GRL’s criteria, authors are
encouraged to resubmit following necessary revisions. While “resetting the clock” on manuscripts that require major revisions reduces the time-to-publication dates, the policy is motivated not by a desire to make the GRL editorial process appear as rapid as possible but rather by a desire to
make the process be as rapid as possible”.
One may agree or disagree with this way of treating manuscripts, but Pielke´s paper was undeniably treated completely along the rules of GRL. And with respect to the gatekeeping, I see absolutely no point whatsoever – after all, if the reviewers or the editor had some kind of hidden agenda, they could easily have chosen to simply rejected the manuscript outright. They did not. And I honestly doubt that Dr. Pielke will have an easier time getting it into a better journal than GRL, and nor is the turnaround time likely to be any faster.
So to sum up: Is there a single valid, reasonable or even understandable point in Pielke´s dissatisfaction or his actions? I certainly fail to see it.
KnR says:
September 28, 2011 at 1:24 am
the editor who refuses to say why.
The editor is not the expert, the reviewer is. The reviewer recommended major revision. The standard policy of GRL is to reject papers that require major revision and to suggest resubmission. This is the way it is and the authors will have to accept that. The editor does not ‘refuse’ to say something.
@RationalDebate
Sorry. No insult intended.
A scan of the papers published in Energy Economics (here: http://ideas.repec.org/s/eee/eneeco.html) would show that we publish regardless of political colour.
We are discussing the release of data on rejected papers with a scientometric research outfit. There are patterns in rejection (e.g., French authors have unusually high rejection rates) but I am confident there is no politics involved. And yes, that would a resigning matter.
Are GRL following the same policies uniformly for all? In such a case, with Dessler having made significant errors and having accepted that to Dr.Spencer saying he’ll amend, will they ask him to re-submit the paper with major revisions to a new set of reviewers? Don’t hold you breath on this.
What should happen when two reviewers differ on the publication value of a paper is that the paper should be submitted to a third reviewer. Problem avoided.
Venter the nature of Dessler comment meet it did not require reviewers, if that is fair or not is another question . But as a comment does not need to be reviewed , but its also judge as to quality knowing its not been reviewed. Nevertheless the undue haste to get Dessler’s work out is of concern and indeed its come back to hurt him as Spencer as been seen to correct the work of the person that claimed he was wrong . No matter how you cut that its devalues Dessler’s work considerable . The ‘Team’s hope that is would kill Spencer work is completely gone now and its actual just resulted in making Wagner’s claimed reason for resigning make even less sense than it did . Which is not something the Team would welcome.
Leif Svalgaard what was the major revision needed , the reviewers do not mention it , the editor claims there is one but can’t say what it is . All that Pielke ask for is that he is told the nature of what this mystery ‘major revision ‘ work he needs to do is. I take you can accept the logic that its not possible to make changes to gain acceptably if they will not tell him what changes need to be done and that if its a ‘major revision’ it must be easy enough to outline it.
In the end the may actual be a real issues which Pielke can benefit from working on , but GRL’s editors approach has been rubbish calling for a ‘major revision’ when the reviewers did not and then simply being unable or unwilling to say what it is makes no sense at all.
Its wrong becasue I say so , but don’t ask why, has no scientific value .
KnR says:
September 28, 2011 at 6:53 am
but GRL’s editors approach has been rubbish calling for a ‘major revision’ when the reviewers did not and then simply being unable or unwilling to say what it is makes no sense at all.
As one reviewer called for changes that went beyond ‘minor revision’, the paper should [and was] automatically be rejected as per the policy of GRL. If one does not like that policy, don’t submit to GRL.
Hi KNR
Dessler 2011 to my knowledge was a peer-reviewed paper, but I could be wrong. When it was published, Texas A&M gave a press release stating that
” Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M atmospheric sciences professor considered one of the nation’s experts on climate variations, says decades of data support the mainstream and long-held view that clouds are primarily acting as a so-called “feedback” that amplifies warming from human activity. His work is published today in the American Geophysical Union’s peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters.”
I read about it at WUWT as per the below link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/06/hot-off-the-press-desslers-record-turnaround-time-grl-rebuttal-paper-to-spencer-and-braswell/
Steve from Rockwood says:
September 28, 2011 at 6:06 am
A third review is often solicited. GRL just doesn’t usually do that the first time around. The editors just send it back. Their model puts the onus on the authors to do deal with whatever issues as they arise. What makes this work is the fast turnaround times.
Ted says:
September 28, 2011 at 8:48 am
Steve from Rockwood says:
September 28, 2011 at 6:06 am
A third review is often solicited. GRL just doesn’t usually do that the first time around. The editors just send it back. Their model puts the onus on the authors to do deal with whatever issues as they arise. What makes this work is the fast turnaround times.
===============================================
Ted, that works well when there are problems with the paper.
It does not work well when there is a problem with one reviewer.
GRL must assume the reviewers are always correct – even when they offer opposing views on the value of the paper.
To modify my earlier comment that a third reviewer should be sought, a third reviewer would help in the event the first two reviewers have offered the opposite advice (say accept with minor revisions versus reject) and this would improve turnaround times when reviewer comments differ greatly.
Leif appears to have fathomed what the fabled major revisions asked to Pielke Jr be. I for one would like to see them listed! Thank you Leif in anticipation!
Leif appears to have fathomed what the fabled major revisions asked to Pielke Jr be. I for one would like to see them listed! Thank you Leif in anticipation!
KnR says: All that Pielke ask for is that he is told the nature of what this mystery ‘major revision ‘ work he needs to do is. I take you can accept the logic that its not possible to make changes to gain acceptably if they will not tell him what changes need to be done and that if its a ‘major revision’ it must be easy enough to outline it.
The reviewers itemized their objections in their reviews. Exactly how Pielke Jr and co-author address the problems is up to them, as is the usual case when revisions are required. Whether the revisions pass muster depends on the detailed letter supplied by Pielke Jr and co-author, and on whether they actually answer the objections. The reviewers never detail in advance exactly what revisions will guarantee acceptance.
Maurizio Morabito says:
September 28, 2011 at 11:47 am
Leif appears to have fathomed what the fabled major revisions asked to Pielke Jr be. I for one would like to see them listed! Thank you Leif in anticipation!
Spare us your ill-founded sarcasm. Sufficed it to say that it is up to the authors to satisfy the reviewers the best they can [and they know well where to problems are – or should be able to rebut the reviewers – or ask for a 3rd one] and simply to submit [as the rest of us do] a revised version and hope for the best.
Septic Matthew Pielke asked repeatedly what the ‘major revision ‘ that needed to be done was, the editor that made this claim, it was NOT the reviewers who made this claim they recommended for publishing ,but could not or would not tell him what is was.
Clearly if its ‘major’ in nature it must be easy to outline but the only thing outlined was by no means major in nature . So back to the beginning ,what is the ‘major revision’ that needs to be done ?
From a scientific point of view just saying its wrong but not why is meaningless , his a journal editor not 3 year old refusing to share their toys and just screaming no I won’t
Venter has far as I understand it , Dessler work did not need peer review becasue it was not a ‘paper’ but a comment , the fact that something is in a peer reviewed journal does not mean it has be peer reviewed it depends on what its nature is.
Actual this route was probable used to give a fast turn around and becasue the ‘Team’ could ensure there was no way peer review would get in their way, in practice their not that powerful in peer review that they could ensure 100% the result they needed . The irony is that approach as blow up in their face , Spencer has been seen as needed to in come in to help Dessler with his work, so any idea that Dessler is a serious challenge to Spencer is gone , while Wagner’s reason makes even less sense given he was using Dessler work in-part to justify it .
For the Team , Dessler my turn out to be a bit of a home goal .
Faults:
1. Lacks in-depth analysis
2. Claims (of homogeneous database) grossly overstated.
3. Storm intensity is handled simplistically
Requested revision to address above faults:
A. At a minimum down-play claims in 2 above and change title.
Note that reviewer 2 appears to support Pielke claims that observed increases in storm damage appear to be misrepresentations, so saying that he was blocking it for “political” reasons or “gatekeeping” because it is “not IPCC” seem disingenuous at best, he downrated it because the analysis did not support the claims. Perhaps this can’t be done in the four page limitation of GRL and it would be better to publish in a journal with less restrictive page limits.
Pretty simple and you don’t have to invoke a worldwide conspiracy as some commenters here seem wont to do.
Personally, I tend to agree (on no evidence whatsoever) with the misrepresentation angle, I think that Roger is correct on this.
Steve, the third reviewer would work in both cases (if I understand you correctly). GRL just has a different approach: if in doubt, reject, and possibly encourage a resubmission. In thus case, the doubt was created by the second reviewer’s very tepid response.
Is this approach better? Who knows. But it’s common knowledge that this how GRL operates.
I once went through three reject/resubmits on a GRL paper, where I would describe the reviews as about as critical as in this case. I know my situation wasn’t unique. Generally, the reaction is to 1) grumble for a day 2) do the work. Roger Pielke Jr. has taken a different approach.
KnR says:
September 28, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Pielke asked repeatedly what the ‘major revision ‘ that needed to be done was, the editor that made this claim, it was NOT the reviewers who made this claim they recommended for publishing ,but could not or would not tell him what is was.
You do not seem to get the situation. It is not up to the editor to show the author how to rewrite his paper. The 2nd reviewer said “For that reason it is perhaps (just) publishable but 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 alone disqualifies the paper according to GRL’s policy. The 2nd reviewer did NOT recommend publication, but said that with much more work [=major revision] the paper was PERHAPS [JUST] publishable. This is NOT a recommendation. It would help if you would acknowledge that you understand the difference.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjP4FM6JDlk&w=560&h=315%5D
See, Pielke Jr didn’t use the magic words: “Gozer the Gozerian… good evening. As a duly designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the nearest convenient parallel dimension. “
Ted:
Reviewer #1 said “publication is recommended for this paper after consideration of some relatively minor issues”.
Reviewer #2 said “The work seems essentially sound and useful to the community” and then added some caveats ending with “I would like to see that aspect down-played and perhaps the title adjusted to read “Towards a homogeneous database …” or some such.” The last sentence sounds as though reviewer #2 favors publication following (what seem to me to be) minor revisions.
The GRL response doesn’t really help the author much as it doesn’t seem to reflect the tone of the two reviewers (#1 “publication is recommended”, #2 “work seems essentially sound”, GRL “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 if I were Pielke I would be confused with the GRL response after seeing the reviewers comments. Add to that the issue of “perception” of revision of the peer review process in climate science and I would also be suspicious that the GRL editors were drop-kicking my paper because its contents were not consistent with the prevailing wisdom.
It is not up to the editor to instruct the author on how to rewrite his/her paper as Leif asserts above. However, editor’s responses should be consistent with reviewers comments and if reviewers comments are inconsistent it is the role of the editor to seek consistency – either by asking a third reviewer to comment (going for 2 out of 3) or by providing specific information on why the paper is being rejected so that the author has a path to move forward (assuming he/she wants to proceed with publishing in that journal).
Leif Svalgaard you just like the editor simply can not state what this major revision is , you got an excuse they have not . Back to the beginning what is the nature of the major revision THE EDITOR claimed existed that is all Pielke asked for,
Once again the reviewers did not make this claim, THE EDITOR did and they took their ball home and refused to play like a child. It would help if you could admit to who made this claim and the fact they simply cannot or will not support it .