Thursday, January 19, 2012


cc: Nathan Gillett <>, Gabi Hegerl <>, Peter Stott <>, Toru Nozawa <>, Alexey Karpechko <>, Michael Wehner <>
date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:34:43 +0100 (BST)
from: D�ith� Stone <>
subject: Re: Fwd: Decision on Nature manuscript 2008-04-03762
to: Phil Jones <>

I agree there probably isn't any point in trying Science now. Nature
Geoscience could be worth a try, I haven't figure out how they work yet.
Or GRL. Or perhaps Environmental Research Letters? They've looked pretty
good so far and by the breadth of perhaps seem to have a reasonably broad

On Thu, 1 May 2008, Phil Jones wrote:

> Nathan,
> I would expect Science to make the same decision as Nature,
> unfortunately.
> It seems that they both want papers which have a little more controversy.
> I though this might, when it comes to the Antarctic, but this seems only an
> issue to an educated few.
> Have a look at GRL. I think I recall a few papers in this with
> supplementary
> material. The GRL formula that works out the size is a little odd. I have
> been
> involved in a couple recently that have been 7pp. Looking at these,
> (attached),
> I attribute this to having near full page diagrams!
> I'd vote for GRL, as it will likely involve less work than going to J.
> Climate.
> If it is then too big for GRL, JGR would do.
> Cheers
> Phil
> At 00:13 01/05/2008, Nathan Gillett wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Unfortunately Nature didn't go for our polar detection paper, so we've
>> got to decide where to send it now. We could try Science, though this
>> may yield a similar answer, GRL, as originally planned (this would
>> mean not including the figures in the supplementary material), or
>> perhaps J. Clim. Other suggestions/votes welcome. I'm out of the
>> office for the next couple of weeks, but I'll get back to this after
>> that...
>> Cheers,
>> Nathan
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: <>
>> Date: 2008/4/29
>> Subject: Decision on Nature manuscript 2008-04-03762
>> To:
>> 29th April 2008
>> Dear Dr Gillett
>> Thank you for submitting your manuscript, "Attribution of polar
>> warming to human influence", for consideration. As you may know, in
>> deciding which papers to publish we have to make an editorial
>> judgement about the immediacy of interest for a general audience, the
>> degree of advance provided, and the like. In practice, this means that
>> we decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending
>> them to referees, in cases where we feel that, even if referees were
>> to certify the manuscript as technically correct, there would not be a
>> strong case for publication in Nature, rather than a specialist
>> journal.
>> In the present case, we have no doubt that your analysis will be of
>> value to others seeking to quantify the anthropogenic influence in
>> records of polar temperature change, not only for the claim of a
>> detectable anthropogenic signal in Antarctica but also for the
>> methodology that you have adopted to achieve this. But I regret that
>> we are unable to conclude that the paper provides the sort of
>> conceptual advance in scientific understanding of the underlying
>> physical processes (and the magnitude thereof) that would warrant
>> publication in Nature rather than in a more specialised journal.
>> Having said this, we do appreciate the topicality of your findings and
>> if you would let us know when the paper has finally been accepted for
>> publication elsewhere, we could then explore the possibility of
>> highlighting these results elsewhere in the magazine.
>> I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively, and I hope that
>> you will understand that our decision in no way reflects any doubts
>> about the quality of the work reported. The unfortunate fact is that
>> we receive many more papers than we can undertake to publish, and we
>> must attempt to select those that will be of the greatest interest to
>> a wide audience. I hope that you will rapidly receive a more
>> favourable response elsewhere.
>> Yours sincerely
>> Karl Ziemelis
>> Physical Sciences Editor, Nature
>> Nature's author and policy information sites are at
>> ** As a service to authors, Nature Publishing Group provides authors
>> with the ability to transfer a manuscript that one journal cannot
>> offer to publish to another journal, without the author having to
>> upload the manuscript data again. To transfer your manuscript to
>> another NPG journal using this service, please click on
>> <>
>> ** For Nature Publishing Group general information for authors, see
>> Please note that does not accept incoming or
>> return messages.
>> This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System
>> NY-610A-NPG&MTS
>> --
>> ****************************************************************************
>> Dr. Nathan Gillett,
>> Climatic Research Unit,
>> School of Environmental Sciences.
>> University of East Anglia.
>> Email:
>> Currently on sabbatical at:
>> School of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
>> University of Victoria,
>> Gordon Head Complex,
>> PO Box 3055,
>> Victoria, BC, V8W 3P6,
>> Canada.
>> Tel: +1 250 472 4013
>> Fax: +1 250 472 4004
>> ****************************************************************************
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, U.K.
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, U.K.
MAIL: Dáithí Stone, AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford,
Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, United Kingdom
TELEPHONE: 44-1865-272342 FACSIMILE: 44-1865-272923

No comments:

Post a Comment