cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:22:06 +0000 from: "Ruddimans" subject: Re: proposed volume to: "Wallien, Femke (ELS)" Femke---Please read and then burn these notes, which represent my x-rated opinion of those parts of the Brambatti proposal about which I have anything knowledgeable to say. Needless to say, I don't want to be used as a "source" of this decision. (1) The talks from speakers outside Italy were mostly reviews of previously published material and in my opinion most of them are not likely to generate papers of great interest to GPC. As I told you previously, many (all?) of the international speakers were invited without being given any idea about the "requirement" of a published paper. Several would not have come had this knowledge been provided in advance. Comments on the specific "invited" (international) talks: The 2 Oldfield papers: Frank is one of those who told me unambiguously during chats in Rome that he would never have accepted the invitation if he had known a written paper was required. He said anything he might write up for a paper would be strictly a review of the kind he has done endlessly elsewhere in recent years as head of PAGES.. Knowing Frank, he probably would do it (1 of the 2 papers anyway) just out of guilt. Briffa: Same situation as Oldfield. Keith would prefer not to write a paper. In recent email exchanges; he told me he could not produce anything earlier than winter, and it would only be a review. I am copying him here. My paper: I've already let you know about this. I could try to pull off a somewhat new piece along the lines of "When the anthropogenic era began", but GPC doesn't seem to me like the right place to publish such a paper (and note the complications below) Kukla: George will likely produce a good paper with some very interesting speculation. Morner: Neils is a truly "special" case. He is so thoroughly discredited among most scientists I know that I would regard it personally as a mistake for me to be part of a published volume in which he is prominently involved as author and probably editor. I enjoy Neils on a one-to-one personal basis, but he is 95% Salvador Dali, and 5% actual scientist. If Morner were definitely going to be involved in a GPC volume, I would most likely not participate for that reason alone. All in all, I think the contributions from the international participants would be mediocre. If the GPC review process is rigorous, it would be a messy process and would drag on a long time. (2). The papers by the Italians ranged from solid and competent to narrow and pedestrian. Although many of these papers focused on a limited geographic scale (Italy), some were well put together and merit wider dissemination to an international audience. Still, I have some doubts these papers would add up to much of a volume either. The best of the Italian presentations was one that used paintings done by the old masters (Titian, others) as a basis for showing where sea level was in Venice during the 1500's(?), 1600's, and 1700's, well before the modern era of instrumental measurements. This was based on sea-level "stains" on canal walls shown in the paintings that could be compared to stains on the modern walls. Unfortunately, this paper is not in Brambatti's list; it has likely been published elsewhere. SO---I have serious reservations about Brambatti's proposed volume. If you decide to go ahead with it, I would suggest that the review process be highly rigorous, and that papers not be let in just because someone had given a talk at the meeeting. If Morner is involved as author or editor, quality control would be difficult. You might end up with a just portion of one issue of GPC, which might be entirely appropriate. Regards, Bill Ruddiman >>From: "Wallien, Femke (ELS)" >>To: "'rudds2@ntelos.net'" >>Subject: proposed volume - Brambati >>Date: Wed, Oct 24, 2001, 11:13 AM >> > >>Dear Bill, >> >>Please find attached the proposal which Brambati has recently made for a >>special issue of Global and Planetary Change. In light of your earlier >>email in July about not being informed by Brambati about his intention to >>publish the contributions presented in the form of a special issue, I would >>greatly appreciate hearing your opinion about this present proposal. As >you can see you are listed as one of the contributors although I understand >that you have no time to write a contribution. > >I look forward to hearing from you. > >Kind regards, >> >>Femke Wallien >>Senior Publishing Editor >>Earth Sciences >>Elsevier Science >>email: f.wallien@elsevier.nl > > >PREVIOUS EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH BRAMBATTI: > > >Tullio Quaia >Dear Dr. Qualia, > >I am in a quandary over what to do about the paper you requested. When I >was first asked to attend this conference, Dr. Brambatti made no mention of >a published paper. Before accepting, I asked him if one was required, >saying that I planned to talk about a subject already in a submitted (now >in-press) paper, so that I could not submit an original paper. He replied >that he >would simply have my talk taped and turned into a transcript. At that point >I accepted his invitation, thinking that the proceedings of the meeting >would probably end up buried in one of those "gray literature' publications, >for which a verbatim transcript would suffice. > >Months later, near or at the time of the meeting, I learned that the >intended place of publication was Global and Planetary Change, a much higher >quality journal than I had expected. I seriously doubt that they will >accept a paper based on a verbatim (or slightly edited) oral transcript >without figures. The figures I used in my talk are color figures >copyrighted by W. H. Freeman, and as a retired person I do not have the >funding resources to pay for color prints in a journal nor to create new >figures. > >Moreover, I am quite skeptical about the ultimate fate of the volume because >I recall talking with Dr. Briffa and Dr. Oldfield at the meeting and >learning that they had only just heard about a written paper requirement by >email shortly before the meeting (but well after accepting the invitation). >Both were displeased about this poor communication and both told me they >would not have accepted the invitation in the first place had they known >there was such a requirement. Because of this odd handling of the early >stages of the meeting, I have some doubts they will produce a paper in a >timely manner, if at all. > >With best regards, > >Bill Ruddiman > >