date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:16:50 +1300
from: "Glenn McGregor" <g.mcgregoratXYZxyzkland.ac.nz>
subject: Re: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript
Thanks for your response and willingness for me to get a third opinion.
I will get onto this straight away as soon as I am back from walking the dog
Best for the remaining period of work on UKCIP and your travels
----- Original Message -----
From: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk <P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
To: Glenn McGregor
Sent: Tue Jan 13 08:10:25 2009
Subject: RE: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript
At home now. I won't be able to do anything for a
few weeks, as we have to get the UKCP09 stuff done
and some travel, so it can't do any harm. So go ahead.
I do realize you can't read everything.
I suspect one of the reviewers may have been Semenov.
If so he is potentially biased, as his group didn't
win the tender for the work!
I don't think either reviewer realized the context of the work -
this may be my fault.
> Dear Phil
> Thanks for your response to the decision on the WG paper.
> I am willing to admit that I may have got it wrong as far as the decision
> goes but you must understand my position. As I am not able to read every
> paper in detail I have to resort to taking a decision based on the
> reviews. In this case both were rather negative, hence my decision.
> Based on your response what I would like to do, with your permission, is
> to send the paper to a 3rd reviewer and request an opinion within 3 weeks.
> If you would not like me to pursue this option then please let me know.
> Needless to say I am very conscious of the fact that you personally have
> given wonderful service to IJoC and I would hope that this incident does
> not damage the long term relationship you have with the journal.
> From: Phil Jones [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tue 13/01/2009 01:25
> To: Glenn McGregor
> Cc: C G Kilsby
> Subject: Re: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript
> I'm afraid these two reviews will definitely
> discourage me from submitting more papers
> to IJC! The two reviewers have not realized
> the novelty of this paper. The WG
> is fairly new and we are certainly not
> re-inventing the wheel! We didn't do an
> in-depth literature review because of space. If you were still
> in the UK, you'd see this whole UKCIP08 package (now to be called
> including this WG coming out in the spring time (April/May).
> To give you one example - all the papers referred to by the reviewers
> work at sites with data. The WG in the paper works anywhere in the UK.
> We've had the WG Report which will form part of the UKCP09 package
> formally reviewed very favourably by three experts in the field.
> You've missed a good paper for IJC here! Your reviewers have not
> read it
> carefully enough - nor understood what it was about. Maybe the latter is
> fault, attempting to explain too much in a
> single paper, but I would have hoped
> for something more constructive.
> You can ignore this email if you want. I won't be submitting this
> to IJC again.
> On the other paper of mine you rejected a couple of months ago, I'm
> going to re-submit that somewhere else now. These reviews were
> especially the positive one - that you chose to
> ignore. At least the reviewers
> understood what the paper was about.
> At 10:51 12/01/2009, you wrote:
>>Dear Prof. Jones
>>Manuscript # JOC-08-0245 entitled "Perturbing a
>>Weather Generator using factors developed from
>>Regional Climate Model simulations" which you
>>submitted to the International Journal of
>>Climatology, has been reviewed. The comments of
>>the referee(s), all of whom are leading
>>international experts in this field, are
>>included at the bottom of this letter. If the
>>reviewer submitted comments as an attachment
>>this will only be visible via your Author
>>Centre. It will not be attached to this email.
>>Log in to Manuscript Central, go to your Author
>>Centre, find your manuscript in the "Manuscripts
>>with Decisions" queue. Click on the Decision
>>Letter link. Within the Decision letter is a
>>further link to the reviewer attachment.
>>In view of the comments of the referee(s) your
>>manuscript has been denied publication in the
>>International Journal of Climatology.
>>Thank you for considering the International
>>Journal of Climatology for the publication of
>>your research. I hope the outcome of this
>>specific submission will not discourage you from submitting future
>>Prof. Glenn McGregor
>>Editor, International Journal of Climatology
>>NOTE FROM EDITOR
>>I have taken the above decision as there appears
>>to be a number of problems with the paper
>>including a deficient review of the literature,
>>few innovative aspects and a lack of analysis
>>rigour. Sorry I could not be more positive.
>>Referee(s)' Comments to Author:
>>Comments to the Author
>>The paper describes how to link a weather
>>generator, which was developed and published by
>>the authors, with predictions from the regional
>>climate model to provide end-users with daily
>>climate scenarios for impact assessments as a
>>part of the UKCIP08 project. This manuscript has major flaws.
>>1. The problem of linking WG with the output of
>>global or regional climate models (GCM/RegCM) to
>>generate daily climate scenarios required by
>>process-based impact models is not new. Wilks
>>(1992) described the method of linking the WGEN
>>weather generator based on a Markov chain model
>>for precipitation with climate predictions
>>derived from GCM. In Barrow et al (1996), a
>>methodology of linking the LARS-WG weather
>>generator based on series approach with HadCM2
>>was described and used in the European project
>>on the assessment of climate change on
>>agriculture in Europe. From 2002, high
>>resolution daily site-specific climate scenarios
>>based on LARS-WG and HadRM3 (UKCIP02)
>>predictions were available for the academic
>>community to study impact of climate change in
>>the UK (Semenov, 2007). A similar work has been
>>done for the Met&Rol generator in Check Republic
>>(Dubrovsky et al, 2004). None of this works has
>>been cited, and their manuscript authors are trying to "rediscoverEthe
>>2. The methodology of assessing the performance
>>of WG is well established. Statistical tests are
>>used to compare probability distributions of
>>observed and simulated weather variables (e.g.
>>the K-S test), the t-test and f-test are used to
>>compare observed and simulated means and
>>variances, the extreme values theory is used to
>>assess how well WG reproduces weather extreme
>>events (Semenov et al, 1998, Qian et al 2004,
>>2008; Kesley et al, 2005; Semenov, 2008). In
>>this paper, authors used a "visualEcomparison
>>to compare observed and simulated means by
>>plotting data points on a graph. This is
>>unacceptable, because no objective conclusions
>>can be derived from such comparison. Proper
>>statistical tests must be used instead.
>>I recommend to reject this manuscript, it is
>>well below the standard acceptable in IJC or any
>>other refereed journals. The manuscript did not
>>contribute to the area of research, and the
>>methodology used for comparison is "naiveEand
>>unaccepted in scientific publications.
>>Comments to the Author
>>All comments to the Author are found in the attached file.
> 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 p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ