Talk:Energy & Environment

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)

SCOPUS

I see the reference from ISI has been specially selected to make the journal look as stupid and irrelevant as possible. How about - for balance: creating a neutral page is what WIkipedia si all about, isn't it - including some facts from Scopus - that E&E is 26th out of 188 in the category 'Energy miscellaneous - a category which includes Energy Policy,Energy Economics, Applied Energy - and has an H index of 16? the link is http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=0&category=2101&country=all&year=2012&order=sjr&min=0&min_type=cd or if it doesn;t work just go to the journal finder bit and, under categories, look up Energy miscellaneous. I would much rather one of you approved people made the change to the EE page (or can come up with a good reason why Scopus 'doesn't matter', 'doesn't count'), rather than having to do it myself, because when I make changes there is always some boring little fanatic pops up who removes my attempts at balance after a nanosecond.81.130.76.50 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Mary444481.130.76.50 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I guess I'm one of those boring little fanatics. There exist many different statistics to analyze citations. The general accepted one is the impact factor. For better or for worse (and personally I think it's the latter), that's what people look at and WP has to reflect that. As a result, we only list the latest IF in journal articles. Not its history, not the 5-year IF, no eigenfactor, or whatnot. Having said this, I will remove part of the analysis in the indexing sector, because that is not what we usually put in other journal articles either. --Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well at least you are a fair minded boring little fanatic and for that I applaud you 81.130.76.50 (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Mary444481.130.76.50 (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

UNless I am missing something, the bit you removed has in fact not been, removed, there's still the tendentious comment about being 87/90 in an inappropriate category etc 81.130.76.50 (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Mary444410:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's neither inappropriate nor tendentious, we include these rankings in many articles on academic journals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I see, the bit about the H factor has been removed. I wonder if ISI lists it in anything else as well as environmental science. Seems a strange category: thats generally about remediation, isn't it, clearing up pollution etc? Seeing where it is in an 'energy' category might be more relevant and appropriate.81.130.76.50 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Mary444481.130.76.50 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just checked to make sure, but that is the only category that it is listed in. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Transferred to Sage

Perhaps the page should be updated to show that this journal is now owned by Sage Publishing; and I believe its ISI ranking has improved since the 0.319 of 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.130.81 (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Mission statement

The relevance of the mission statement here is not that it is promotional blabla, but instead the relevance is that the part that is quoted in the article makes clear that the journal editor was using the journal as a venue for climate sceptic views. This ties in with what the rest of this section is about. TimOsborn (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Asking DGG and Headbomb for their input. Thanks in advance! --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'm on board with a full quote of their statement. I know I'm not on board with a full quote of their scope in the lead. I might be on board with an "in Wikipedia voice" summary of either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

In general, I do not think it is a good idea to include fulll mission statements in articles on journals, ans they are usually repetitive and comprehensive and nonspecific. There is of course more reason yo include it when ther journal is controversial, as this one, and the current excerpt seems OK. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC) �