date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:19:42 +1300 from: "Glenn McGregor" subject: RE: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript to: Phil Thanks for the useful suggestion Glad the UKCP09 meet went well Glenn -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2009 9:29 a.m. To: Glenn McGregor Subject: Re: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript Glenn, Just got back from the UKCP09 meeting in Reading. WG reasonably well received. Really helps to have some results. Can I make one suggestion? Good if the reviewer were a Brit - then they's know something about the context. Possibilities would be Rob Wilby and Nigel Arnell. Rob is now at Loughboro (has left the EA - back to academia). Nigel is now at Reading. We can easily add in a review og WGs. Cheers Phil Phil > > 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 > > Glenn > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk > To: Glenn McGregor > Sent: Tue Jan 13 08:10:25 2009 > Subject: RE: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript > > Glenn, > 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. > > Cheers > Phil > > >> 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. >> >> Best >> Glenn >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >> Sent: Tue 13/01/2009 01:25 >> To: Glenn McGregor >> Cc: C G Kilsby >> Subject: Re: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript >> >> >> >> Glenn, >> 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 >> UKCP09) >> including this WG coming out in the spring time (April/May). >> To give you one example - all the papers referred to by the >> reviewers >> only >> 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 >> my >> 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 >> paper >> 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 >> constructive, >> especially the positive one - that you chose to >> ignore. At least the reviewers >> understood what the paper was about. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> At 10:51 12/01/2009, you wrote: >>>12-Jan-2009 >>> >>>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 >>> manuscripts. >>> >>>Sincerely, >>> >>>Prof. Glenn McGregor >>>Editor, International Journal of Climatology >>>g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz >>> >>>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: >>> >>>Referee: 1 >>>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 >>> "rediscoverEthe >>> wheel. >>> >>>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 "visualEcomparison >>>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 "naiveEand >>>unaccepted in scientific publications. >>>============================== >>> >>>Referee: 2 >>>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.jones@uea.ac.uk >> NR4 7TJ >> UK >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> > > >