Talk:Energy & Environment

Is the "cleanup" tag still needed?

And if so, what sort of cleanup does it still need? --Blogjack (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Given no response, I'm removing the tag. --Blogjack (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Impact Factor

Can we get the Impact Factor included in this journal's basic info? By the way what is this journal's impact factor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1492 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• The journal is currently not included in the Journal Citation Reports and therefore has not (yet?) an impact factor. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, EE was accepted into ISI's system for indexing in 2011 and so, as is normal, its first impact factor will appear in mid 2012 ~mary4444~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.145.38 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Contributors list inadequate

Contributors are listed at the beginning of the article as being Henderson, Tol, and Yohe. This is OK as far as it goes but doesn't bring out the significance of the contribuitions to E&E. Shouldn't a few of the better known names be added: McIntyre & McKitrick, whose demolishing of the Hockey Stick changed the climate change conversation completely; Soon & Balunias, Singer, Lindzen, Gurlanky, Kininmonth are a few that come to mind. Of the ones currently listed, why pick those three? Tol has some significant public profile, I'm not sure the other two do. I don't think mere mortals are presently allowed to alter the page, so I'd welcome anyone who is able doing that, or any of the usual suspects telling me why it can't be done. At one point, in its many revisions, a list including Lindzen et al was on the Wiki EE page. Don't know why it disappeared. Could it come back?81.130.81.107 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Mary81.130.81.107 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• For good reasons, the journal articles writing guide discourages the listing of "notable contributors". As you say, such lists are usually arbitrary and, in any case, don't confer any notability on the journal (WP:NOTINHERITED). All three that are currently listed are apparently "notable" in the WP sense, not just Tol. I think that the best solution is to remove the third sentence of the lead completely. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the journal articles writing guide and, in the light of that your suggestion of removing all 3 names seems reasonable. However the JWG seems to imply that articles should be straight factual accounts. It doesn't say its OK to have the article dominated by Criticism, so how about taking that section out altogether, too?84.13.37.27 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Mary84.13.37.27 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• A well-sourced criticism section is a factual account. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to keep Connelly, Kim, Stephan et al on their toes, I,ve made another cheery change to the page - nice to see us mortals are allowed to play again - I'll look for a source for that Goklany quote. It'll be fun to see how long my changes are allowed to last....its 11.40 here. -~Mary4444~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.59.180 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like ~15 minutes, with the limit of measurement being the fact that your edit was smeared out over 24 minutes. And you might want to read WP:POINT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't quite know what "smeared out over 24 minutes" means. _Anyway, nice to see you're still on the ball. Tomorrow I shall have a look at WP:POINT and, no doubt, note your special interpretation of it. Tomorrow, battle will recommence. Best wishes ~Mary4444~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.59.180 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephan, please don't think I'm sandbagging you, having said "until tomorrow" but what exactly was your point in referring me to WP:POINT? Having looked at it, it doesn't seem to me that me edit (deleted) infringed it. What am I missing?~Mary4444~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.59.180 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply from a 24-hour Wiki watcher in fact I took another look at WP:POINT and clicked POLICIES, in case there was a Wiki policy which said man made global warming was real, the science was settled, and every prospect pleaseth apart from man who is vile ( either Pope or Marvell, can't recall). So WP:POINT doesn't invalidate my edit. nor does POLICIES, so WTF? All I got at POLICIES was a nice man called sinebot reminding me I should add 4 tildes to my messages: thus 84.13.59.180 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)mary444484.13.59.180 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I must say there's not a lot wrong with Professor Sonnenfeld's revisions to the E&E page. One small error: Peiser is no longer co-editor, and the link through the EE webpage is to his Liverpool John Moores Univ email address which I think is no longer valid - ie he is a full time GWPF person. no doubt Multi-Science will correct that soon. Surprising indeed that the usual suspects have allowed these revisions to a well-watched wikipedia page to stand. Lets watch this space. Now, 4 tildes I believe is the deal: 89.242.95.22 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Mary444421:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the bits of bias thats always irritated me about this page is the out of context stuff from Pielke, and Gavin's bought and paid for schtick in the Guardian (well played Fenton Communications) that EEs peer review is sub standard. Perhaps Professor S or someone else would like to dig up the quotes from Tol, Loehle, for example, saying that EEs peer review is perfectly normal? Oh wait - those quotes will no doubt be from blogs that Stephan, Kim, Connelly, don't approve of? See up-thread for how the guys exclude all 'wrong-headed' blogs. All blogs are equal, but some blogs more equal than others? So Real Climate won't count then, in the Wiki-wonderland?89.242.95.22 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)mary444489.242.95.22 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A small quibble: the journal was not founded by David Everest. He was the first editor, appointed by Multi-Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.95.22 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Factual error

"Its editor-in-chief since 1998 is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation) currently serves as co-editor.[4]"

This is not correct, Peiser does not currently serve as co-editor, and the Multi-Science website has been amended to reflect that. Would someone care to make the necessary correction?81.130.77.4 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Mary444481.130.77.4 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The 'Mission Statement' page on the journal's website continues to state: "Dr. Benny Peiser, University of Liverpool and the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation now acts as co-editor." Perhaps this is error, too? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that one, well spotted. Another odd thing, just below that bit about Peiser, the claim that its only published 240 papers since 1988 (leaving aside the fact that Vol 1 was 1989.) I'm sure if anyone could be bothered to add up the papers published since year 2000, they alone would exceed 240, never mind what was published in the 11 years prior to that - and since 2000, they are all listed at http://multi-science.metapress.com (click on to Energy and Environment to see the contents pages)84.13.145.62 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Mary84.13.145.62 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just checked: if one searches in Web of Science, 240 articles are listed and the citation report indeed gives the results reported in the article. Whether that should remain is another question. The data are potentially misleading, as lay people may easily be impressed by these numbers whereas in actuality, of course, they are absolutely dismal... They become a little bit less dismal once one sees that only articles published since 2009 have been included, which definitely should be corrected in the article text. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, since 2009 makes sense of the 240 articles claim, and I suppose it appears thus in ISI because when they add a journal (usually) they cover the two years prior to their start date, ie they added EE in 2011 so would have begun their coverage of it from 2009. Perhaps that could be made explicit in the article, since it reads to me at present that this journal has only published 240 articles in 22 years, barely 10 per year!81.130.77.4 (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Mary444481.130.77.4 (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Clarification & comparison added. See if that helps... Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the comparison is a good idea. This is not something done in any other article on a journal that I know about. Pretty soon, the first impact factor should be published (the 2011 IFs should come out any day now). When those are available, we can provide a ranking (see, for example, Social Politics, where I just added that info). Such a ranking will be more informative, because the current comparison doesn't say much if one doesn't know how all other journals in this category do. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, once the impact factor is available, that would be a stronger indicator to use. (The comparative journal, cited in the footnote, is Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions.) Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

First it would be interesting to know what this other journal is, just so we know we're comparing like with like,not talking about Nature for example. Second is there any point in stating the H index or the coming impact factor, since they will be trivial, except to deliberately cast the journal in a poor light? Sonia B-C points out that the IPCC (and virtually all professional academic climate scientists) won;t have anything to do with the journal, so when it publishes on climate matters, it publishes the work of the relatively small number of contrarians, who obviously are not going to be cited by the majority who don't think there's anything to be contrary about anyway, and dismiss contrarians pretty much completely.81.130.77.4 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Mary81.130.77.4 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Where available, impact factors are always listed in articles on academic journals, whether high or low. In this case, it's going to be very low, but then, for every journal that has an IF, there are many more that are not listed by the JCR (I have yet to see a journal article deleted because the IF was low; generally, the presence of any IF is taken as a proof of notability). I'm less sure about the h-index. I have never (on- or off-wiki) seen journals rated by their h-index. That would be very difficult anyway (given that its h is dependent on a journal's age and field, for example). Even if one would limit the h-calculation to a certain time period and only compare within a field, most journals would not be comparable, given the large differences in numbers of articles published. For those reasons, I'm inclined to delete it here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Lacking an impact factor, I found the h-index interesting, but don't feel strongly about it. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK this how it presently stands: E&E published 240 articles between January 2009 and May 2012. According to Web of Science, 28 (11.7%) of those articles had been cited by at least one other peer-reviewed, scholarly journal article (excluding self-citations) by June 2012; the journal's h-index for the same period was 3.[8] (By contrast, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the same, 'Environmental Studies' category had 227 (70.9%) of its 320 articles published during a similar period cited at least once, with an h-index of 18.)[9] What about (a) deleting entirely the section in brackets beginning "By contrast"; or (b) naming the journal with an h factor of 18, or (c) deleting everything after "by June 2012;" with a mental note to include the impact factor when it becomes available and possibly if (c) then adding a comment similar to mine 'explaining' why the IF is so low? Any thoughts?84.13.17.172 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Mary84.13.17.172 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't bother to explain my change because I get tired of the loaded arguments. Peisner (a) obviously has nothing to do with the journal now and (b) majorly employed as he now is by GWPF, so,so what? You might as well start a "shock-horror" line, John Surrey, or Bjorn Lomjberg, used to be on the editorial board" Big deal78.146.107.61 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)mary444478.146.107.61 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Latest revisions

I am lost with Dave Souza's revisions, where he changes the dates on the Monastersky reference. Whats that all about, bearing in mind last time I clicked on the link it didn't actually take us to the reference; merely some typescript which could have been written by anyone but anyway Stephan said it was OK because it supported his POV so it must be OK. So what, now we have unverifiable references of movable provenance, proving what, pray? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.213.54 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Forgot me tildes! 2.96.213.54 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Mary44442.96.213.54 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)"unverifiable references of movable provenance" -aka climate 'science' hahaha only joking2.96.213.54 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)mary44442.96.213.54 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Strangely, click on the link to monastersky in the article and it gives you 'page not found' so that alleged reference probably never existed - nice typing stephan - so anyway I've zapped it, if it can really be found feel free to restore. I've also added some balance to the criticism, I;m sure Willy Connelly can find the reference for me, Wikipeia being a collegiate effort - Willy, hint, try RealClimate February 2011 - or is RealClimate now not a blog-u-like anymore hhahaha2.96.213.54 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Mary44442.96.213.54 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a full reference given. The link is only for convenience - if it goes bad, use a library. However, it took me about 10 second on Google to find the official article at the CoHE.: [1]. The full text is paywalled, but for that see WP:PAYWALL. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To help the lost IP, the date of publication of S&B is a bit unclear as the press release was on 31 March, it appeared in the May issue, and Monastersky wrote "Spring" so I've changed it match his account at cited. . . dave souza, talk 23:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephan, Dave thank you for clarification. so, could we not include this in 'Criticism': "Richard Tol says: 23 Feb 2011 at 3:22 AM For your information, I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." That is from RealClimate, which surely is an authoritative blog. It will be fun to see if it is still on Realclimate in a hour's time. Just in case, I have kept it, so there can be no argument about authenticity, in the way I mistakenly did over Monastersky, and apologies for that89.243.10.27 (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Mary444489.243.10.27 (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course another possibility is to drop, in the criticism section, the argument about low peer review standards and concentrate on the low impact aspect, which is unarguable, and not surprising given that quite a few of EE published papers seek to overturn the accepted wisdom: why, for example, would modern geographers seek to argue with members of the Flat Earth Society? Its reasonable to say that outlandish arguments do not engage the mainstream; less reasonable to say that (apparently, to some audiences) outlandish arguments have not been reviewed.89.243.10.27 (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)mary444489.243.10.27 (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

And of course if we search upthread quite a bit, we find that the knockdown argument against this journal was that it was not in ISI, so was not peer reviewed because all journals which were properly peer reviewed were in ISI. Which it now is. So if it is in ISI how can it have 'low' standards of review? Formerly the argument was that all 'properly' reviewed journals are in ISI. So what are we now saying? That ISI, formerly the gold standard, which only admits 'properly' reviewed journals, now actually admits journals with 'low' standards of peer review? Is the proposition now that "ISI is a worthless enterprise which will give a badge to any old rubbish"? 89.243.10.27 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Mary444489.243.10.27 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

ERROR IN CRITICISM In Criticism is the line " Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation) has served as co-editor.[8" Ref 8 no longer supports this assertion, the relevant part of the 'mission statement' having been updated at last, therefore it ought to be removed, ought it not? Or do we "all" know that Peiser used to be associated with the journal and we want the fake smear by association with GWPF to stand?89.242.84.165 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Mary89.242.84.165 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you deny that Peiser served as the co-editor? Or do you want to hide it? I think we all know that he did indeed do so (or at least that the journal page claimed so), so unless there is a reason to remove him, we should rather look for a new source to support this known true fact. The simplest seems to be to use the Wayback machine and just get the mission statement from last year: http://web.archive.org/web/20110716153424/http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee-mission.htm. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I neither want to hide nor deny it, I just want it to be correct which, in your revision, it now is ie Pieser used to be co-editor, correct; Peiser is co-editor, wrong. Still puzzled as to why we can't have Tol's, Loehle's remarks on EEs routine peer-review included to balance the hysterical claims of Schmidt et al.86.162.224.61 (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Mary444486.162.224.61 (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the "criticism" section still relevant?

That article in the Guardian was based in part on Pielke's opinion of the journal when it hadn't yet been indexed by ISI. Pielke had published there when E&E was *expecting* to be indexed but the process took longer than expected, Pielke got flack for publishing there as part of the general piling-on in wake of the M&M Hockeystick articles, and that made Pielke grumpy about E&E. Now that E&E *has* been indexed, nobody needs a couple of talking-head quotes claiming the impact factor is low - the factor is listed right there in the lead paragraph. So I propose to get rid of that paragraph/section. I'll do so if nobody objects here in a reasonable period. --Blogjack (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't you post this at the bottom? It wasn't just Pielke noting its low impact in science, it may have more traction as a social studies publication but the point stands in the area of climate science. . dave souza, talk 16:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have checked the JCR. the journal is not listed in the Science edition, only in the Social Science one. I have added the IF and the ranking in its category to the article. Seems like the "low impact" criticism still holds, also in the social sciences. --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blogjack, there is no reason for that papragraph. But actually, I think that figure of 0.147 is the 'immediacy factor' whatever that might be, and the 2012 impact factor appears to be 0.319. Perhaps someone who has better access to ISI than I do could check that and make the correction?81.130.52.29 (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Mary4481.130.52.29 (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, 0.147 was indeed the 2011 IF (and by chance exactly the same as the 2012 immediacy index). However, last month the 2012 IFs were published. I have updated the IF in the article as well as the journal ranking. --Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I see its very much at the bottom of the class in the category 'environmental studies'. I wonder what other kinds of journals are in that category, and how comparable they actually are. Also would be interesting to try another category, say, 'energy policy' and see where it comes there.81.130.52.29 (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Mary444481.130.52.29 (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)