I’m listening to a presentation by PAGES2K authors sponsored by Nature:
Started at 11 am Eastern.
11:30. Open for questions. I have submitted the following:
Can you explain the decision to label the article as only a “Progress Article”, rather than a Research Article?
Nature’s definition of Progress Articles http://www.nature.com/ngeo/authors/content_types.html says that such articles are “commissioned by the editors” and associates them with “fields that might not yet be mature enough for review”. It also states that such articles do not include received and accepted dates and places more restrictive word and display limits than full Research Articles:
“When the discussion is focused on a developing field that might not yet be mature enough for review, a Progress article is more appropriate. Progress articles are up to 2,000 words in length, with up to 4 display items (figures, tables or boxes). References are limited to 50. Reviews and Progress articles are commissioned by the editors, but proposals including a short synopsis are welcome. Reviews and Progress articles are always peer-reviewed to ensure factual accuracy, appropriate citations and scholarly balance. They do not include received/accepted dates.”
Thousand-year paleoclimate reconstructions clearly do not qualify as a “developing field… not mature enough for review”. So why was this article classified as only a Progress Article?
Did Nature editors either commission the PAGES2K article or receive a short synopsis from the authors?
Given the above policy against received and accepted dates, why did Nature you include received and accepted such dates for the PAGES article?
Here is my surmise on the matter. The PAGES2K article presents eight different reconstructions using a variety of methods. Each individual reconstruction warranted separate peer review in specialist literature and it was impossible within the required time frame for peer reviewers to provide the peer review expected of a Research Article. As a way out of the review dilemma, one or more reviewers suggested that PAGES2K be published as a Progress Article, a recommendation that you adopted, even though the article did not fit within the definition. Can you comment on this surmise?