WIREs Climate Change ( IF 9.2 ) Pub Date : 2023-04-05 , DOI: 10.1002/wcc.835
Wiley received a letter regarding a potential conflict of interest present in the review and publication of: “Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement,” by Biermann, F., et al. in WIREs Climate Change, 13(3), e754. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.754. In response to this concern, Wiley's Integrity in Publishing Group undertook an independent investigation to consider whether the peer review process adhered to the journal's policy of impartiality in peer review and to assess any potential conflict of interest. The investigation found that there was a conflict of interest present in the peer review process. As a result, we have decided to amend the publication record with this Article Note for transparency, which we believe will be of value to the reader to view the published article in its full context.
- Solar geoengineering or solar radiation management, the subject of the article, is a heavily debated and highly publicized topic in the fields of climate change and engineering.
- An earlier version of this article was rejected by another journal. Professor Mike Hulme, the Editor-in-Chief of WIREs Climate Change and the handling editor of the article, was a co-author of that earlier manuscript. The author group decided to expand the manuscript for submission to WIREs Climate Change as a Perspective article. Professor Hulme withdrew from the author group and was not involved in the development of this new manuscript.
-
The article is a Perspective, an article category in WIREs that “may be deliberately provocative or twinned with an opposing view to capture the essence of a live debate.” Due to their special nature, the criteria and guidelines for reviewing Perspectives submissions are different from the other review articles published in WIREs:
- Perspectives do not require a balanced citing of relevant literature capturing all sides of the argument.
- Review instructions put emphasis on the clarity of argument and the credibility of the position offered as supported by the cited evidence, and request reviewers not to state whether they agree or not with the opinions stated, but whether they believe these opinions are clearly expressed and well argued.
- The original manuscript was sent to four reviewers by Professor Hulme and the revised version was accepted following reviewer recommendations.
- Wiley maintains that best practice would have been for Professor Hulme to recuse himself from the peer review process due to his involvement as an author in a previous version of the manuscript.
- Following the investigation, Wiley considered the option of further post-publication peer review for the article. After discussion, it was determined that the highly polarized nature of the topic, and the public nature of the debate, meant that the scientific content of the article has already been discussed at length following the article's publication, by experts on both sides of the debate. Therefore, Wiley decided that an additional peer review step was not justified.
- Wiley acknowledges that Professor Hulme's author contribution to the earlier version of the article represents a conflict of interest. However, as the authors presented sound conclusions and valid arguments, and taking into consideration the special nature of Perspective articles, we have decided to retain the article in the publication record with the addition of this acknowledgement. We believe that the published article in its current form (with the additional context of this Article Note) makes a significant contribution to the scientific discourse on this important topic.
中文翻译：
太阳能地球工程：Biermann 等人的国际不使用协议案例。（DOI：10.1002/wcc.754）
Wiley 收到一封关于审查和出版 Biermann, F. 等人所著的《太阳能地球工程：国际不使用协议案例》中存在潜在利益冲突的信件。电线气候变化，13（3），e754。https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.754。为了回应这一担忧，Wiley 出版诚信集团进行了一项独立调查，以考虑同行评审过程是否遵守该期刊的同行评审公正政策，并评估任何潜在的利益冲突。调查发现，同行评审过程中存在利益冲突。因此，我们决定通过本文章注释修改出版记录，以提高透明度，我们相信这对于读者查看已发表文章的完整上下文是有价值的。
- 本文的主题太阳能地球工程或太阳辐射管理是气候变化和工程领域备受争议和高度关注的话题。
- 本文的早期版本被另一家期刊拒绝。《WIREs Climate Change》的主编兼这篇文章的主编 Mike Hulme 教授是该早期手稿的合著者。作者小组决定扩展手稿，作为透视文章提交给WIREs 气候变化。Hulme教授退出了作者组，不参与这份新手稿的开发。
-
这篇文章是一种观点，是《WIRE》中的一个文章类别，“可能故意具有挑衅性，或者与相反的观点结合起来，以捕捉现场辩论的本质。” 由于其特殊性，Perspectives 提交的评审标准和指南与 WIRE 上发表的其他评审文章不同：
- 观点不需要平衡地引用涵盖论点各个方面的相关文献。
- 评审说明强调论点的清晰性和所引用证据所支持的观点的可信度，并要求评审员不要说明他们是否同意所陈述的观点，而要说明他们是否认为这些观点表达清楚、充分争辩道。
- Hulme 教授将原稿发送给四位审稿人，并根据审稿人的建议接受修订版。
- 威利坚持认为，最佳做法是休姆教授回避同行评审过程，因为他作为作者参与了前一版本的手稿。
- 调查结束后，威利考虑了对该文章进行进一步发表后同行评审的选择。经过讨论，确定该主题的高度两极分化性质以及辩论的公开性质意味着该文章的科学内容在文章发表后已经由辩论双方的专家进行了详细讨论。因此，Wiley 认为额外的同行评审步骤是不合理的。
- Wiley 承认 Hulme 教授对本文早期版本的作者贡献存在利益冲突。然而，由于作者提出了合理的结论和有效的论据，并考虑到 Perspective 文章的特殊性，我们决定在发表记录中保留该文章并添加此致谢。我们相信，以当前形式发表的文章（以及本文注释的附加背景）对这一重要主题的科学讨论做出了重大贡献。
京公网安备 11010802027423号