Less than 2 months ago, I ended upwards alongside a really unexpected invitation to review a classic Coexistence Approach newspaper submitted to Palaeo^3 — Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (PPP). The maiden off fourth dimension ever that this happened as well as it’s only 6 years since nosotros published our maiden off critique (Grimm & Denk 2012).
 |
| When a magazine needs impact, it cannot live also picky. |
Naturally, I had to decline to formally deed every bit peer, because
- you shouldn’t function for RELX’ Elsevier for free, inward whatever capacity (The Kraken awakes; Online proofing: service for stakeholders or shareholders; Elsevier's Research Data)
- given what nosotros showed as well as pointed out to a greater extent than of late (Grimm et al. 2016 — after waiting a long fourth dimension for our brain-child crossing the Forest of Reviews; Grimm & Potts 2016 — opened upwards access as well as 2-month tidings stage but no leading Coexistence Approach disciple dared to partake), whatever editor should directly decline whatever Coexistence Approach newspaper (or results).
Normally, the next would dissipate into oblivion, because – every bit nosotros all know – the peer review physical care for ordinarily is confidential as well as should stay so to protect us all.
Being out-of-business, as well as having to fill upwards a blog, I tin lavatory cross the magic lines that bind professional person career scientists to give a glimpse how this physical care for works.
 |
| Googling "Guido Grimm" (Personally, I purpose DuckDuckGo to search the net, as well as my homepage is also the top-hit there.) |
Here’s my maiden off postal service to the treatment editor of the paper, who apparently tried to attain out to me for reviewing but couldn’t "...find an upwards to engagement e-mail address".
Dear Xxx,
I strongly applaud your volition that CA papers published inward P^3 are finally reviewed past times independent peers.
Your editorial colleague Tom Algeo has my electrical current email, since I contacted him regarding P^3 information documentation policy triggered past times a newspaper your magazine published this twelvemonth past times Worobiec & Gedl (see this post http://www.rachelteodoro.com/search?q=the-kraken-awakes-elsevier-increases). I was tempted to write a comment, but neither the authors nor Tom were able to furnish me access to the primary information they used. The authors responded that they are "not sure" whether they are allowed sharing the data, as well as Tom made clear the editorial is non "answerable" to whatever such asking [See Trying to disperse the Impermeable Fog #2]. I also works life out that during review, the peer that pointed out (in a really friendly as well as positive way) problems of the study, was completely ignored.
Let's live clear: the NECLIME syndicate cannot afford to release the information they purpose for their reconstructions because
a) every bit far every bit tin lavatory live said from the only CA/Palaeoflora study ever published providing the primary tolerance information (Quan et al. 2012, P^3), they are extremely biased
b) it tin lavatory live shown that all resolved, potentially informative intervals are triggered past times taxa that are either misidentified, misinterpreted or are unrepresentative. Astatistically used min-max tolerances don't have got the capacity to model climate niches, non today, and, hence, non inward the past.
c) i could purpose the meanwhile substantially corrected tolerance information (stated so inward Utescher et al. 2014) on the published taxon lists to evaluate the number on before published reconstructions.
In short, spill the carte du jour line of piece of employment solid as well as expose a pretty pseudo-science.
Cheers, Guido
I strongly applaud your volition that CA papers published inward P^3 are finally reviewed past times independent peers.
Your editorial colleague Tom Algeo has my electrical current email, since I contacted him regarding P^3 information documentation policy triggered past times a newspaper your magazine published this twelvemonth past times Worobiec & Gedl (see this post http://www.rachelteodoro.com/search?q=the-kraken-awakes-elsevier-increases). I was tempted to write a comment, but neither the authors nor Tom were able to furnish me access to the primary information they used. The authors responded that they are "not sure" whether they are allowed sharing the data, as well as Tom made clear the editorial is non "answerable" to whatever such asking [See Trying to disperse the Impermeable Fog #2]. I also works life out that during review, the peer that pointed out (in a really friendly as well as positive way) problems of the study, was completely ignored.
Let's live clear: the NECLIME syndicate cannot afford to release the information they purpose for their reconstructions because
a) every bit far every bit tin lavatory live said from the only CA/Palaeoflora study ever published providing the primary tolerance information (Quan et al. 2012, P^3), they are extremely biased
b) it tin lavatory live shown that all resolved, potentially informative intervals are triggered past times taxa that are either misidentified, misinterpreted or are unrepresentative. Astatistically used min-max tolerances don't have got the capacity to model climate niches, non today, and, hence, non inward the past.
c) i could purpose the meanwhile substantially corrected tolerance information (stated so inward Utescher et al. 2014) on the published taxon lists to evaluate the number on before published reconstructions.
In short, spill the carte du jour line of piece of employment solid as well as expose a pretty pseudo-science.
Cheers, Guido
An unprecedented act: getting the newspaper as well as an invitation to review
I got a prompt as well as positive answer.
Apparently, this editor genuinely wants to alter the modus operandi of incestuous review as well as unhindered (and unhinged) publication of pseudo-results. About time. Just these days PPP published a paper, where the authors simultaneously reconstruct palaeo-temperature as well as -altitude using the Coexistence Approach (topic for a futurity post). Attached to the editor’s response was the submitted paper, which findings I was asked to care for alongside confidence (here’s the PDF [6 MB], a goodness instance of how-not-to-make-a-palaeoclimatic-study co-authored past times non only i but both palaeoclimate experts who invented the Coexistence Approach) as well as to write “…a paragraph explicitly asking for the supplementary information required”, which would have got as well as so been passed to “… the lead-author without attribution to you” Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 overnice gesture, I suppose. However, I never felt a argue to cover behind the Impermeable Fog as well as would insist on beingness attributed. Also, I'm a fan of opened upwards scientific debate, which tin lavatory live educative also for others.
He expressed farther his hope that “once these information have got been received”, I powerfulness bring the review request.
By the way, the authors, which include the acting High Lord Mosbrugger as well as High Wizard Utescher of the (only) scientific syndicate advocating the Coexistence Approach (Mosbrugger & Utescher 1997, newspaper published inward – guess where), NECLIME – suggested 5 reviewers, all of which are listed every bit NECLIME members (most query etc funded alongside German linguistic communication money...), as well as 3 of which are frequent co-authors of Utescher (and Mosbrugger, to a lesser degree), 2 joined Utescher every bit co-authors of the 2014 newspaper (thought to live a reply to our 2012 critique; run across also Grimm et al. 2016, tabular array 1) as well as have got first-authored papers that nosotros showed to live flawed (see Supplement File ES2 to Grimm & Denk 2012; as well as Quan et al. 2012, the information nosotros used for Grimm et al. 2016 to demonstrate practical flaws inward the application of the Coexistence Approach).
Purest pal review reveals itself, how overnice (and stylish inward climate sciences: a recent post regarding an editorial inward Global as well as Planetary Change, the post I mentioned inward my maiden off postal service as well as the one following-up…
I don't review, but I'm happy to part my opinion
Why would yous throw matches at individual that loves to lavatory bridges? This was my respond (including a non-formal review of the paper) terminating farther correspondence betwixt the editor as well as me on the topic (additions inward [blue]).
Dear Xxx,
I appreciate the offer, but at that spot is genuinely no dot inward reviewing this paper, yous may every bit good issue it similar the many others. Because from an objective dot of catch it tin lavatory only live rejected, as well as the authors encouraged to apply a non fundamentally flawed method. We outlined unopen to options that may lay fifty-fifty the Palaeoflora information to improve purpose inward Grimm & Potts (2016). But obviously, this is non (and cannot be, regarding the substantial demeanor upon generated past times NECLIME, to a greater extent than than 10,000 citations since 1997) the long-standing policy of your journal.
Point 1 Using the a (pseudo)quantitative actuo-palaeontological CA on Palaeogene floras — Mosbrugger & Utescher wrote themselves inward the 1997 newspaper that CA volition furnish best results for the Miocene (Miocene, because unweighted mutual climate make approaches, of which the CA is a subcategory, cannot resolve the Pleistocene fluctuations!) as well as live ok for the Oligocene but hardly possible for older fourth dimension periods. Reason beingness that the Northern Hemisphere witnessed a major taxonomic turnover from the 'greenhouse' stage inward the Paleocene/Eocene to the 'ice-house' inward the Oligocene as well as the expansion of the so-called "Arcto-Tertiary elements" (modern-day generally but non solely temperate lineages) to lower latitudes. Some of the Arcto-Tertiary elements, the most famous beingness the oaks, invaded diverse niches at lower latitudes (today, a few oaks tin lavatory live works life inward the tropics), as well as permit to a drastic decline of the ancient, supposedly warmth-loving so-called "para-tropical" elements. It is so highly debatable to apply the actuo-palaeontological regulation at all. It's pretty unlikely that whatever genus alongside e.g. today a MAT tolerance of 14–27 °C (warm temperate to tropical) as well as unopen to other of 8–16 °C (boreal to warm temperate) had the same inward the Eocene, which is what the entire study builds on (only using a precision of 0.1 °C). And which nosotros already demonstrated for the Eocene of mainland People's Republic of China (Palaeoflora information provided inward Quan et al. 2012).
Regarding information documentation everything should live already inward the Electronic Supplement: "The consummate floral lists, assigned NLRs as well as their climatic requirements are given inward the Electronic Supplements 1–7." [This would live the 2nd fourth dimension inward twenty years the used information are documented]; it afterwards says: "Floral lists alongside corresponding NLRs employed inward this study as well as their climatic requirements are made available inward the Electronic Supplements 1–7." Not explicitly mentioned is that the climate tolerances are estimated past times "careful choice of 4–6 climate stations" (Utescher et al. 2014), rendering them naturally stone oil estimates which should live represented every bit such, as well as non alongside a pseudo-precision of 0.1 °C as well as 1 mm precipitation.
Point 2: Lack of validation — Only the master copy 1997 newspaper is referenced for reliability/method validation, a newspaper that used incorrect tolerances as well as 4 modern-day validation floras, 2 of which were from the same identify (50km apart, Upper Rhine Valley), as well as i where the CA reconstructed partly erroneous intervals (technically impossible for a mutual climate make approach when using a modern-day flora, but happened because Mosbrugger & Utescher ignored a major climatic edge betwixt their modern validation flora, growing inward an Mediterranean Csa climate, as well as the climate station they used for comparison, inward a fully humid Cfa climate). Why i tin lavatory issue results based on a method that so far has only been shown to non function (Klotz 1999, Thompson et al. 2012, our papers) as well as has never been validated, remains a mystery to me.
Also, every bit usual, they ignored everything nosotros showed inward our papers, but 2 examples: "Bombacaceae Kunth growing widely inward torrid zone is a warm outlier inward the analysis as well as is only acquaint inward 2 palynofloras." – their interval has been, as well as apparently, silent is wrong, why the often occur every bit "warm outliers". Another argue is that they conflict alongside fully temperate taxa works life inward coexistence. In such a case, everything is possible. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 also narrow interval (for the Bombaceae or the temperate taxa they were works life with), mixed flora, or a niche shift. Since it cannot live said what it is, both the Bombaceae as well as the taxa non overlapping alongside them would demand to live eliminated from the reconstruction, or the entire flora non considered (mutual climate make approaches as well as the actuo-palaeontological regulation require that all taxa tin lavatory as well as could coexist, if unopen to don't, as well as so something is wrong).
"Larix Mill. represents a mutual depression temperature outlier inward the analysis. The taxon is mainly acquaint inward pollen records as well as hither interpreted every bit altitudinal element" falls inward the same category. It's also funny, because this is what nosotros pointed out (also here, the at to the lowest degree the MAT intervals were also narrow). It's goodness to run across that they at to the lowest degree at nowadays nurture unopen to of our points, fifty-fifty though they are non crediting us.
Point 3: Impermeable ignorance almost fundamental problems of unweighted univariate mutual climate make approaches inward full general as well as CA inward particular
a) Odd repetition of identical (pseudo)precise values every bit upper as well as lower coexistence interval boundaries — Note the same/very similar values are edifice upwards many intervals, independent from the fourth dimension period. The argue for this is that only a really limited laid of climate stations are "carefully selected", as well as often the same for really different taxa alongside quite different distribution (there's a beautiful figure inward our 2016 newspaper illustrating this bias for CA/Palaeoflora studies). Accordingly, the "estimates" are the same house-numbers than the NECLIME syndicate has been publishing at nowadays since nearly 2 decades inward your journal.
b) Lacking whatever statistical safeguards, CA volition ever reconstruct subtropical climates — Just compare the reconstructed "coexistence intervals" alongside those works life for the Eocene of mainland People's Republic of China as well as random subsamples (Grimm et al. 2016). They are finely plumbing equipment what nosotros showed as well as published already: all roads Pb to North Carolina (Grimm & Denk 2012), respectively Yunnan, when using East Asian fossil floras (Grimm et al. 2016): the to a greater extent than NLRs are used, the to a greater extent than probable yous terminate upwards alongside (summer-)humid subtropical climates; climates inward which whatever works life tin lavatory (theoretically) coexist. And all mixed floras (from different altitudes, regions) volition have got an according pseudo-coexistence interval (particularly, since "climatic outliers" are but eliminated, to ensure genuinely whatever flora volition have got a coexistence interval, inward violation of the really basics of a mutual climate make approach).
c) Misinterpretation of coexistence intervals — past times definition, the coexistence interval, which – aside for eventual "climatic outliers" – is the univariate mutual climate make of all NLRs should (if no first-level errors are present) include the existent climate value, but it cannot live said whether the existent value is closer to the lower or upper boundary. This is fifty-fifty stated inward Mosbrugger & Utescher (1997) as well as has been verified using best-possible tolerance information past times Klotz (1999) as well as us (Grimm & Denk 2012), run across also Thompson et al. (2012). But the authors write (because their coexistence intervals generally overlap across the entire covered fourth dimension period, run across their Figs 7ff): "The onslaught of pronounced cooling is quite evident from the belatedly Oligocene temperature data, characterized past times lower hateful values [this is the mid-value betwixt the upper as well as lower boundary of the coexistence interval] of MAT, CMMT as well as WMMT". Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 definite cooling would require a substantial shift inward the mutual climate range, the coexistence interval, which is non visible. Instead the newspaper gives: "MAT (14.8/14–15.6 °C) for the LF 8" every bit the "lowest" for the Oligocene. Let solitary that its biologically impossible, today, to notice a genus-level flora providing such precision (less than 1 °C!, fifty-fifty tricky when yous have got a total species-level information set). This interval (14–16 °C, i.e. subtropical climate inward connecter alongside the reported CMT values) stands vs. "the highest values inward the early on Eocene for MAT (18.2/15.3–21.1 °C) are obtained for 4 floras: the PF 27, 28, 308 29 as well as thirty (southwest as well as primal part)", again, subtropical setting (isn't it beautiful, no affair whether Paleocene, Eocene or Oligocene, the Russian Far East was a subtropical paradise). However, the global temperature was almost 10 °C higher inward the early on Eocene than after the Oligocene cooling. Something that apparently had no number on the Russian Far East: One of the Eocene "highest" intervals (15.3–21.1) overlaps alongside the Oligocene "lowest" interval (14–15.6 °C), so inward the logic of CA as well as univariate unweighted mutual climate make approaches the hottest Eocene flora may have got grown nether the same MAT than the coldest Oligocene flora ( fifteen °C) [Explanotory note: the Eocene was globally much hotter than the Oligocene]. The other (18.2–21.1) grew nether less than 3 °C hotter weather condition (15.6 °C vs. 18.2 °C) or vii °C (14 °C vs 21.1 °C). So silent curt from the global average of 10 °C less. Odd inward this context, a works life alongside a minimum MAT tolerance of 18.2 °C must live an solely nigh tropical works life (Cfa, Cwa of southernmost mainland People's Republic of China into total tropics), which fifty-fifty today, is non works life coexisting alongside plants that cannot stand upwards tropical weather condition (the only tropical climate station alongside a Tann < 21.1 is Los Naranjos, Panama, 1200 m a.s.l.) Without having had access to the supplement these narrow(-ish) intervals dot towards pseudo-coexistence, i.e. a flat i fault source, every bit outlined inward Grimm & Potts (2016).
To this terminate Figs 7ff are revealing, although it is non genuinely clear what the shown values are (I suppose box-plots – unopen to missy the medians, also few information points? – of the coexistence intervals' "mean values" of all floras representing each fourth dimension slice, comparable to our Road-to-Yunnan-figure of the random subsamples inward Grimm et al. 2016?)
d) Theory — Again, as well as measure inward published allegedly peer-reviewed CA/Palaeoflora papers, the theoretical issues alongside the CA (climate niches are non rectangular, unweighted univariate mutual make approaches cannot live decisive unless biased past times first-level errors, how probable is it that the modern distribution tin lavatory inform a 0.1°C value for a putative ancestor/ancient relative thriving xl myrs ago) are non addressed at all.
What i would demand to do to brand this newspaper publishable — The minimum the authors demand to do, is to illustrate the actual shift inward a basic statistic agency past times providing box-plots of min-max tolerances (see Grimm et al. 2016, Grimm & Potts 2017) for each flora as well as parameter instead only reporting the (pseudo-)coexistence interval as well as focussing on the meaningless "mean values", so i tin lavatory at to the lowest degree assess whether the climate-defining taxa (the "shift" betwixt 18.2 °C, possible lowest for hottest Eocene as well as 15.6 °C, possible highest coldest Oligocene) are due to exotic elements or non (nothing new, all said, outlined as well as published inward Grimm et al. 2016, Grimm & Potts 2016). I'd live surprised if non the box-plots of reasonable tolerances would reverberate the full general cooling tendency as well as the overall climate development inward the Russian Far East (however, nosotros showed, Grimm & Denk, 2012, for mainland People's Republic of China that the temperature slope betwixt 0 as well as 1000/1500 m did non alter much the seat of the box-plots, only when yous acquire out the subtropical lowland wood into the montane fully temperate forest, yous run across a shift inward the distribution of 2nd MAT tolerances, less so for max MAT tolerances). Which is all that tin lavatory live inferred from taxon lists at this dot (given that a genus', generic lineage, climate niche changes over fourth dimension every bit much than those of its element species): trends! But non quantitative estimates such every bit the average temperature of the coldest calendar month inward the Eocene was 9–10 °C (well, 9.x–10.x °C, but every bit Utescher et al. 2014 brand clear, this precision is but application-related as well as should non live viewed every bit such, without specifying at which accuracy they should live viewed.)
Moreover, the authors could brand x-y plots of the min-max tolerances for 2 climatically informative parameters (e.g. CMT vs. MAP; WPwet vs WPdry), to seek for pseudo-coexistence. Any flora alongside no bivariate mutual climate (coexistence) expanse (100% coexistence is a must, when the basic supposition should live fulfilled) is either a mixed flora or indicates a violation of i of the 4 basic assumptions of the CA, so should live eliminated or filtered for non-coexisting taxa.
Rather than providing tables as well as lengthy texts reporting pseudo-precise (again how tin lavatory modern distribution inform an interval alongside a precision of less than 2 °C or less than 10 mm precipitation/month for the Oligocene as well as older, if the same method fails to resolve the LGM?) as well as over-accurate (0.1 °C, 1 mm) coexistence intervals, the authors could illustrate the reconstructed intervals inward a concise fashion every bit nosotros did it for Quan et al. (2012): plotting all temperature values together viz all atmospheric precipitation values, to pinpoint unfitting values/odd combinations. From the provided box-plots Figs 7ff it cannot live deduced how MAT, WMT, as well as CMT intervals correlate (which they should, but often they do non when it comes to coexistence intervals; banking concern notation also that Thompson et al. (2012) showed for North America that CMT is the only relevant temperature parameter when it comes to works life distribution, has this been tested for East Asia?) or the atmospheric precipitation values (side note: "MPwarm" is a bioclimatically useless parameter inward the context of mutual climate make approaches, since the warmest calendar month tin lavatory live a really different i depending whether i is inward the tropics, the dry out climates or the temperate/boreal climates, again, something nosotros pointed already out inward our papers). An according supplement or in-text figure could supervene upon chapters 4.1 as well as 4.2 as well as Figs 7ff. But insisting that e.g. "WMMT (27.3/26.6–28.1 °C)" is a quantitative approximate that the warmest calendar month at locality PF26 inward the early on Eocene was 27.5 °C hot on average (the Lieth et al. climate station information includes 286 stations alongside a Tmax of 27–28 °C, tropical climates, dry out climates, subtropical climates), as well as the using "mean values" to stand upwards for intervals such every bit "CMMT (8.2/3.8–12.6°)", i.e. “10.4°” or “8.2°” CMT as well as “10.1°” (64, generally subtropical, unopen to hot dry out climates) or “6.65°” (86 stations, generally subtropical, unopen to dry out climates), hateful values for "CMMT (6.6/−0.3–13.6 °C)" (the latter interval matches 975 stations out of 2625, including everything extratropical from the hot deserts to the cosy Cfc of Iceland, i.e. a goodness bargain of the B- as well as the most of the C-climates betwixt 20–60 °N!) for the hottest Oligocene inward the nicely coloured maps, ever was as well as remains but ridiculous.
Beyond what I wrote inward a higher identify (which yous may care for every bit a review as well as tin lavatory frontward to the authors), I volition non formally review this newspaper for sure, because
But I may live tempted to dot out how flawed this study is, i time published (provided the Supplement Tables include the information promised), as well as what genuinely tin lavatory live said based on the compiled data. It likely volition live a really overnice instance for unopen to other post as well as potential piece for bioRxiv's "conflicting data" category.
If yous have got the guts, yous decline this newspaper straight-away as well as whatever other CA/Palaeoflora newspaper until the CA-applicants have got shown how precise as well as accurate their reconstructions are at best using modern-day validation floras nether realistic circumstances, i.e. genus- as well as family-level taxon lists as well as doing rarefication tests (validation physical care for is outlined inward Grimm & Potts, 2016, which is opened upwards access, as well as had a 2-month opened upwards tidings stage to which all authors of Utescher et al. 2014 were invited, but no-one took upwards the opportunity). Mainly they should halt using the CA protocol as well as apply at to the lowest degree a proper unweighted univariate mutual climate make approach: i.e. using the intervals, non the "mean values", as well as only include floral lists alongside 100% coexistence.
I'd similar to dot out that CLAMPP, which is mentioned inward the introduction, is validated using at nowadays over thousands of modern validation floras, as well as has undergone permanent upgrades to minimise errors since pretty much the really get-go (which also was rough). So why does CA silent acquire away alongside three, i of which partly failed?
Or yous issue it as-is, every bit your magazine has published many other papers of the CA syndicate (apparently despite what non-syndicate reviewers said, unchanged every bit inward the instance of Worobiec & Gedl 2018). If the supplement files include what is promised, it volition live an exemplarily well-documented newspaper for CA/Palaeoflora standards, rarely found, as well as really valuable inward that honor (the ever cited Palaeoflora database does non furnish whatever useful access to the used data)
Cheers, Guido
I appreciate the offer, but at that spot is genuinely no dot inward reviewing this paper, yous may every bit good issue it similar the many others. Because from an objective dot of catch it tin lavatory only live rejected, as well as the authors encouraged to apply a non fundamentally flawed method. We outlined unopen to options that may lay fifty-fifty the Palaeoflora information to improve purpose inward Grimm & Potts (2016). But obviously, this is non (and cannot be, regarding the substantial demeanor upon generated past times NECLIME, to a greater extent than than 10,000 citations since 1997) the long-standing policy of your journal.
Point 1 Using the a (pseudo)quantitative actuo-palaeontological CA on Palaeogene floras — Mosbrugger & Utescher wrote themselves inward the 1997 newspaper that CA volition furnish best results for the Miocene (Miocene, because unweighted mutual climate make approaches, of which the CA is a subcategory, cannot resolve the Pleistocene fluctuations!) as well as live ok for the Oligocene but hardly possible for older fourth dimension periods. Reason beingness that the Northern Hemisphere witnessed a major taxonomic turnover from the 'greenhouse' stage inward the Paleocene/Eocene to the 'ice-house' inward the Oligocene as well as the expansion of the so-called "Arcto-Tertiary elements" (modern-day generally but non solely temperate lineages) to lower latitudes. Some of the Arcto-Tertiary elements, the most famous beingness the oaks, invaded diverse niches at lower latitudes (today, a few oaks tin lavatory live works life inward the tropics), as well as permit to a drastic decline of the ancient, supposedly warmth-loving so-called "para-tropical" elements. It is so highly debatable to apply the actuo-palaeontological regulation at all. It's pretty unlikely that whatever genus alongside e.g. today a MAT tolerance of 14–27 °C (warm temperate to tropical) as well as unopen to other of 8–16 °C (boreal to warm temperate) had the same inward the Eocene, which is what the entire study builds on (only using a precision of 0.1 °C). And which nosotros already demonstrated for the Eocene of mainland People's Republic of China (Palaeoflora information provided inward Quan et al. 2012).
Regarding information documentation everything should live already inward the Electronic Supplement: "The consummate floral lists, assigned NLRs as well as their climatic requirements are given inward the Electronic Supplements 1–7." [This would live the 2nd fourth dimension inward twenty years the used information are documented]; it afterwards says: "Floral lists alongside corresponding NLRs employed inward this study as well as their climatic requirements are made available inward the Electronic Supplements 1–7." Not explicitly mentioned is that the climate tolerances are estimated past times "careful choice of 4–6 climate stations" (Utescher et al. 2014), rendering them naturally stone oil estimates which should live represented every bit such, as well as non alongside a pseudo-precision of 0.1 °C as well as 1 mm precipitation.
Point 2: Lack of validation — Only the master copy 1997 newspaper is referenced for reliability/method validation, a newspaper that used incorrect tolerances as well as 4 modern-day validation floras, 2 of which were from the same identify (50km apart, Upper Rhine Valley), as well as i where the CA reconstructed partly erroneous intervals (technically impossible for a mutual climate make approach when using a modern-day flora, but happened because Mosbrugger & Utescher ignored a major climatic edge betwixt their modern validation flora, growing inward an Mediterranean Csa climate, as well as the climate station they used for comparison, inward a fully humid Cfa climate). Why i tin lavatory issue results based on a method that so far has only been shown to non function (Klotz 1999, Thompson et al. 2012, our papers) as well as has never been validated, remains a mystery to me.
Also, every bit usual, they ignored everything nosotros showed inward our papers, but 2 examples: "Bombacaceae Kunth growing widely inward torrid zone is a warm outlier inward the analysis as well as is only acquaint inward 2 palynofloras." – their interval has been, as well as apparently, silent is wrong, why the often occur every bit "warm outliers". Another argue is that they conflict alongside fully temperate taxa works life inward coexistence. In such a case, everything is possible. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 also narrow interval (for the Bombaceae or the temperate taxa they were works life with), mixed flora, or a niche shift. Since it cannot live said what it is, both the Bombaceae as well as the taxa non overlapping alongside them would demand to live eliminated from the reconstruction, or the entire flora non considered (mutual climate make approaches as well as the actuo-palaeontological regulation require that all taxa tin lavatory as well as could coexist, if unopen to don't, as well as so something is wrong).
"Larix Mill. represents a mutual depression temperature outlier inward the analysis. The taxon is mainly acquaint inward pollen records as well as hither interpreted every bit altitudinal element" falls inward the same category. It's also funny, because this is what nosotros pointed out (also here, the at to the lowest degree the MAT intervals were also narrow). It's goodness to run across that they at to the lowest degree at nowadays nurture unopen to of our points, fifty-fifty though they are non crediting us.
Point 3: Impermeable ignorance almost fundamental problems of unweighted univariate mutual climate make approaches inward full general as well as CA inward particular
a) Odd repetition of identical (pseudo)precise values every bit upper as well as lower coexistence interval boundaries — Note the same/very similar values are edifice upwards many intervals, independent from the fourth dimension period. The argue for this is that only a really limited laid of climate stations are "carefully selected", as well as often the same for really different taxa alongside quite different distribution (there's a beautiful figure inward our 2016 newspaper illustrating this bias for CA/Palaeoflora studies). Accordingly, the "estimates" are the same house-numbers than the NECLIME syndicate has been publishing at nowadays since nearly 2 decades inward your journal.
b) Lacking whatever statistical safeguards, CA volition ever reconstruct subtropical climates — Just compare the reconstructed "coexistence intervals" alongside those works life for the Eocene of mainland People's Republic of China as well as random subsamples (Grimm et al. 2016). They are finely plumbing equipment what nosotros showed as well as published already: all roads Pb to North Carolina (Grimm & Denk 2012), respectively Yunnan, when using East Asian fossil floras (Grimm et al. 2016): the to a greater extent than NLRs are used, the to a greater extent than probable yous terminate upwards alongside (summer-)humid subtropical climates; climates inward which whatever works life tin lavatory (theoretically) coexist. And all mixed floras (from different altitudes, regions) volition have got an according pseudo-coexistence interval (particularly, since "climatic outliers" are but eliminated, to ensure genuinely whatever flora volition have got a coexistence interval, inward violation of the really basics of a mutual climate make approach).
c) Misinterpretation of coexistence intervals — past times definition, the coexistence interval, which – aside for eventual "climatic outliers" – is the univariate mutual climate make of all NLRs should (if no first-level errors are present) include the existent climate value, but it cannot live said whether the existent value is closer to the lower or upper boundary. This is fifty-fifty stated inward Mosbrugger & Utescher (1997) as well as has been verified using best-possible tolerance information past times Klotz (1999) as well as us (Grimm & Denk 2012), run across also Thompson et al. (2012). But the authors write (because their coexistence intervals generally overlap across the entire covered fourth dimension period, run across their Figs 7ff): "The onslaught of pronounced cooling is quite evident from the belatedly Oligocene temperature data, characterized past times lower hateful values [this is the mid-value betwixt the upper as well as lower boundary of the coexistence interval] of MAT, CMMT as well as WMMT". Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 definite cooling would require a substantial shift inward the mutual climate range, the coexistence interval, which is non visible. Instead the newspaper gives: "MAT (14.8/14–15.6 °C) for the LF 8" every bit the "lowest" for the Oligocene. Let solitary that its biologically impossible, today, to notice a genus-level flora providing such precision (less than 1 °C!, fifty-fifty tricky when yous have got a total species-level information set). This interval (14–16 °C, i.e. subtropical climate inward connecter alongside the reported CMT values) stands vs. "the highest values inward the early on Eocene for MAT (18.2/15.3–21.1 °C) are obtained for 4 floras: the PF 27, 28, 308 29 as well as thirty (southwest as well as primal part)", again, subtropical setting (isn't it beautiful, no affair whether Paleocene, Eocene or Oligocene, the Russian Far East was a subtropical paradise). However, the global temperature was almost 10 °C higher inward the early on Eocene than after the Oligocene cooling. Something that apparently had no number on the Russian Far East: One of the Eocene "highest" intervals (15.3–21.1) overlaps alongside the Oligocene "lowest" interval (14–15.6 °C), so inward the logic of CA as well as univariate unweighted mutual climate make approaches the hottest Eocene flora may have got grown nether the same MAT than the coldest Oligocene flora ( fifteen °C) [Explanotory note: the Eocene was globally much hotter than the Oligocene]. The other (18.2–21.1) grew nether less than 3 °C hotter weather condition (15.6 °C vs. 18.2 °C) or vii °C (14 °C vs 21.1 °C). So silent curt from the global average of 10 °C less. Odd inward this context, a works life alongside a minimum MAT tolerance of 18.2 °C must live an solely nigh tropical works life (Cfa, Cwa of southernmost mainland People's Republic of China into total tropics), which fifty-fifty today, is non works life coexisting alongside plants that cannot stand upwards tropical weather condition (the only tropical climate station alongside a Tann < 21.1 is Los Naranjos, Panama, 1200 m a.s.l.) Without having had access to the supplement these narrow(-ish) intervals dot towards pseudo-coexistence, i.e. a flat i fault source, every bit outlined inward Grimm & Potts (2016).
To this terminate Figs 7ff are revealing, although it is non genuinely clear what the shown values are (I suppose box-plots – unopen to missy the medians, also few information points? – of the coexistence intervals' "mean values" of all floras representing each fourth dimension slice, comparable to our Road-to-Yunnan-figure of the random subsamples inward Grimm et al. 2016?)
d) Theory — Again, as well as measure inward published allegedly peer-reviewed CA/Palaeoflora papers, the theoretical issues alongside the CA (climate niches are non rectangular, unweighted univariate mutual make approaches cannot live decisive unless biased past times first-level errors, how probable is it that the modern distribution tin lavatory inform a 0.1°C value for a putative ancestor/ancient relative thriving xl myrs ago) are non addressed at all.
What i would demand to do to brand this newspaper publishable — The minimum the authors demand to do, is to illustrate the actual shift inward a basic statistic agency past times providing box-plots of min-max tolerances (see Grimm et al. 2016, Grimm & Potts 2017) for each flora as well as parameter instead only reporting the (pseudo-)coexistence interval as well as focussing on the meaningless "mean values", so i tin lavatory at to the lowest degree assess whether the climate-defining taxa (the "shift" betwixt 18.2 °C, possible lowest for hottest Eocene as well as 15.6 °C, possible highest coldest Oligocene) are due to exotic elements or non (nothing new, all said, outlined as well as published inward Grimm et al. 2016, Grimm & Potts 2016). I'd live surprised if non the box-plots of reasonable tolerances would reverberate the full general cooling tendency as well as the overall climate development inward the Russian Far East (however, nosotros showed, Grimm & Denk, 2012, for mainland People's Republic of China that the temperature slope betwixt 0 as well as 1000/1500 m did non alter much the seat of the box-plots, only when yous acquire out the subtropical lowland wood into the montane fully temperate forest, yous run across a shift inward the distribution of 2nd MAT tolerances, less so for max MAT tolerances). Which is all that tin lavatory live inferred from taxon lists at this dot (given that a genus', generic lineage, climate niche changes over fourth dimension every bit much than those of its element species): trends! But non quantitative estimates such every bit the average temperature of the coldest calendar month inward the Eocene was 9–10 °C (well, 9.x–10.x °C, but every bit Utescher et al. 2014 brand clear, this precision is but application-related as well as should non live viewed every bit such, without specifying at which accuracy they should live viewed.)
Moreover, the authors could brand x-y plots of the min-max tolerances for 2 climatically informative parameters (e.g. CMT vs. MAP; WPwet vs WPdry), to seek for pseudo-coexistence. Any flora alongside no bivariate mutual climate (coexistence) expanse (100% coexistence is a must, when the basic supposition should live fulfilled) is either a mixed flora or indicates a violation of i of the 4 basic assumptions of the CA, so should live eliminated or filtered for non-coexisting taxa.
Rather than providing tables as well as lengthy texts reporting pseudo-precise (again how tin lavatory modern distribution inform an interval alongside a precision of less than 2 °C or less than 10 mm precipitation/month for the Oligocene as well as older, if the same method fails to resolve the LGM?) as well as over-accurate (0.1 °C, 1 mm) coexistence intervals, the authors could illustrate the reconstructed intervals inward a concise fashion every bit nosotros did it for Quan et al. (2012): plotting all temperature values together viz all atmospheric precipitation values, to pinpoint unfitting values/odd combinations. From the provided box-plots Figs 7ff it cannot live deduced how MAT, WMT, as well as CMT intervals correlate (which they should, but often they do non when it comes to coexistence intervals; banking concern notation also that Thompson et al. (2012) showed for North America that CMT is the only relevant temperature parameter when it comes to works life distribution, has this been tested for East Asia?) or the atmospheric precipitation values (side note: "MPwarm" is a bioclimatically useless parameter inward the context of mutual climate make approaches, since the warmest calendar month tin lavatory live a really different i depending whether i is inward the tropics, the dry out climates or the temperate/boreal climates, again, something nosotros pointed already out inward our papers). An according supplement or in-text figure could supervene upon chapters 4.1 as well as 4.2 as well as Figs 7ff. But insisting that e.g. "WMMT (27.3/26.6–28.1 °C)" is a quantitative approximate that the warmest calendar month at locality PF26 inward the early on Eocene was 27.5 °C hot on average (the Lieth et al. climate station information includes 286 stations alongside a Tmax of 27–28 °C, tropical climates, dry out climates, subtropical climates), as well as the using "mean values" to stand upwards for intervals such every bit "CMMT (8.2/3.8–12.6°)", i.e. “10.4°” or “8.2°” CMT as well as “10.1°” (64, generally subtropical, unopen to hot dry out climates) or “6.65°” (86 stations, generally subtropical, unopen to dry out climates), hateful values for "CMMT (6.6/−0.3–13.6 °C)" (the latter interval matches 975 stations out of 2625, including everything extratropical from the hot deserts to the cosy Cfc of Iceland, i.e. a goodness bargain of the B- as well as the most of the C-climates betwixt 20–60 °N!) for the hottest Oligocene inward the nicely coloured maps, ever was as well as remains but ridiculous.
Beyond what I wrote inward a higher identify (which yous may care for every bit a review as well as tin lavatory frontward to the authors), I volition non formally review this newspaper for sure, because
- it'll live an verbalize waste product of time. Everything done here, has been shown past times us to live fundamentally flawed. Our critiques stand upwards unchallenged. And this paper, similar Worobiec & Gedl (2018) [or the of late non-NECLIME newspaper published past times Wu et al. 2018], does non fifty-fifty address the most basic problems alongside the CA.
- I don't function for RELX without beingness paid for it (or whatever other magazine enforcing as well as hiding behind peer review confidentiality).
But I may live tempted to dot out how flawed this study is, i time published (provided the Supplement Tables include the information promised), as well as what genuinely tin lavatory live said based on the compiled data. It likely volition live a really overnice instance for unopen to other post as well as potential piece for bioRxiv's "conflicting data" category.
If yous have got the guts, yous decline this newspaper straight-away as well as whatever other CA/Palaeoflora newspaper until the CA-applicants have got shown how precise as well as accurate their reconstructions are at best using modern-day validation floras nether realistic circumstances, i.e. genus- as well as family-level taxon lists as well as doing rarefication tests (validation physical care for is outlined inward Grimm & Potts, 2016, which is opened upwards access, as well as had a 2-month opened upwards tidings stage to which all authors of Utescher et al. 2014 were invited, but no-one took upwards the opportunity). Mainly they should halt using the CA protocol as well as apply at to the lowest degree a proper unweighted univariate mutual climate make approach: i.e. using the intervals, non the "mean values", as well as only include floral lists alongside 100% coexistence.
I'd similar to dot out that CLAMPP, which is mentioned inward the introduction, is validated using at nowadays over thousands of modern validation floras, as well as has undergone permanent upgrades to minimise errors since pretty much the really get-go (which also was rough). So why does CA silent acquire away alongside three, i of which partly failed?
Or yous issue it as-is, every bit your magazine has published many other papers of the CA syndicate (apparently despite what non-syndicate reviewers said, unchanged every bit inward the instance of Worobiec & Gedl 2018). If the supplement files include what is promised, it volition live an exemplarily well-documented newspaper for CA/Palaeoflora standards, rarely found, as well as really valuable inward that honor (the ever cited Palaeoflora database does non furnish whatever useful access to the used data)
Cheers, Guido
So far, the newspaper is non published. But I guess, it’s but a affair of time.
From the tribal wisdoms of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation:
When yous uncovering that yous are riding a dead horse,
the best strategy is to dismount.
When yous uncovering that yous are riding a dead horse,
the best strategy is to dismount.
But non if the dead (actually, still-born; run across Klotz 1999) Equus caballus is called Coexistence Approach as well as yous tin lavatory describe unopen to strings during confidential peer review.
Update 16/7/2018 – sometime dogs can learn novel tricks
The bushdrums have got been telling me that the newspaper volition non live published. At least, non inward PPP. Apparently, they decided to alter their modus operandi for the lastly 2 decade (closing both eyes when it came to CA/Palaeoflora papers as well as their extremely misfortunate documentation) as well as decided that total access to the Palaeoflora Database would live a pre-requisite. Utescher et al. reacted every bit they did before (Tang et al. 2015) when beingness asked to release/document the primary data: the newspaper I got to review as well as unopen to other i inward the pipage were retracted. Still fearing the low-cal of day, my shadowy friends? Enforce as well as encourage opened upwards information remains the only safeguard against pseudo-science.
Should live self-evident.
Further reading...
Riding against the Windmills of Palaeo^3 – a comment to Worobiec & Gedl (2018) as well as the authors as well as editorial response to my information request illuminating how deep PPP sits inward the steal of NECLIME's broad mantle.
For farther examples how confidential peer review (including possible pal review) protects misfortunate scientific discipline as well as dubious publication ethics cheque out the #FightTheFog as well as bad science flagged posts.
And inward instance yous experience the demand to bring together the (so far) desolate troop (two dozen so far) charging the Windwills of Confidential Peer Review ensuring the Impermeable Fog protects unethical publication procedures, sign upwards for my silent running petition to forcefulness all journals to employ peer review transparence.
Our 2012 [PDF] as well as 2016 [PDF] rebuttal letters for the papers published inward Review of Palaeobotany & Palynology, another Elsevier magazine alongside strictly confidential peer review. PS We suggested for both newspaper the 2 inventors of the Coexistence Approach, as well as invited all authors of Utescher et al. (2014) to used the 2-month opened upwards tidings stage for our 2nd newspaper inward 2016 submitted to Climates of the Past, inward which nosotros bargain alongside the theory. 2012 (well 2011) i did write an 'anonymous' report, 2016 i apparently accepted but didn't homecoming a report, as well as no-one used the opened upwards tidings stage of the Climates of the Past paper (non-invited reviews cannot live done anonymously...only the invited one, but they are also documented).
... as well as links.
The Coexistence Approach's abode as well as castle: www.neclime.de
The arcane Palaeoflora Database, often cited, rarely documented what of these information (most of which are non publicly accessible as well as what is publicly accessible may live outdated; Anonymous inward pers. comm. 2011; run across also Utescher et al. 2014) were genuinely used inward a newspaper (see Grimm et al. 2016 for discrepancies betwixt information as well as results reported inward Quan et al. 2012) – number of PPP editors having works life this page but non looked inward the data: 1.
World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification (Kottek et al. 2006; Rubel et al. 2016) provided every bit opened upwards information past times the Climate Change & Infectious Diseases Group at the Veterinary-medicinal University inward Vienna — a must for all palaeoclimate researchers using fossil plants every bit proxy data. Wladimir Köppen was (among other things) a botanist.
Also useful is to cheque out the Walter climate charts, a free-to-access collection of climate information from to a greater extent than than 2000 stations tin lavatory live e.g. works life here: https://www.climate-charts.com/index.html
Our online supplements for the 2012 [ZIP-archive] as well as 2016 papers include quite useful bits, e.g. floral lists that could live used to validate as well as seek mutual climate make approaches as well as an EXCEL including the station information provided on CD past times Lieth et al. (1999).
Cited literature
Grimm GW, Bouchal JM, Denk T, Potts AJ. 2016. Fables as well as foibles: a critical analysis of the Palaeoflora database as well as the Coexistence Approach for palaeoclimate reconstruction. Review of Palaeobotany as well as Palynology 233:216–235.
Grimm GW, Denk T. 2012. Reliability as well as resolution of the coexistence approach — Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 revalidation using modern-day data. Review of Palaeobotany as well as Palynology 172:33–47.
Grimm GW, Potts AJ. 2016. Fallacies as well as fantasies: the theoretical underpinnings of the Coexistence Approach for palaeoclimate reconstruction. Climates of the Past 12:611–622.
Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. 2006. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 15:259-263.
Klotz S. 1999. Neue Methoden der Klimarekonstruktion - angewendet auf quartäre Pollensequenzen der französischen Alpen. Tübingen: Institut & Museum für Geologie & Paläontologie [now: Institute for Geosciences], Eberhard Karls University. [Ph.D. thesis supervised past times V. Mosbrugger showing, amid other interesting things, that CA was the worst of all alternative available dorsum then; oft cited for the contrary inward NECLIME papers, since inward German linguistic communication as well as hardly accessible.]
Lieth H, Berlekamp J, Fuest S, Riediger S. 1999. Climate Diagram World Atlas on CD [the information for the Northern Hemisphere are included inward ES7 to Grimm & Denk 2012 every bit EXCEL multi-sheet file]
Mosbrugger V, Utescher T. 1997. The coexistence approach -- a method for quantitative reconstructions of Tertiary terrestrial palaeoclimate information using works life fossils. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 134:61-86.
Quan C, Liu Y-SC, Utescher T. 2012. Eocene monsoon prevalence over China: Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 paleobotanical perspective. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 365-366:302–311.
Rubel F, Brugger K, Haslinger K, Auer I. 2016. The climate of the European Alps: Shift of really high resolution Köppen-Geiger climate zones 1800–2100. Meteorologische Zeitschrift DOI:10.1127/metz/2016/0816.
Thompson RS, Anderson KH, Pelltier RT, Strickland LE, Bartlein PJ, Shafer SL. 2012. Quantitative estimation of climatic parameters from vegetation information inward North America past times the mutual climatic make technique. Quaternary Science Reviews 51:18–39.
Utescher T, Bruch AA, Erdei B, François I, Ivanov D, Jacques FMB, Kern AK, Liu Y-SC, Mosbrugger V, Spicer RA. 2014. The Coexistence Approach—Theoretical background as well as practical considerations of using works life fossils for climate quantification. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 410:58–73.
Worobiec E, Ged P. 2018. Upper Eocene palynoflora from Łukowa (SE Poland) as well as its palaeoenvironmental context. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology DOI:10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.12.019.
Wu J, Zhang K, Xu Y, Wang G, Garzione CN, Eiler J, Leloup PH, Sorrel P, Mahéo G. 2018. Paleoelevations inward the Jianchuan Basin of the southeastern Tibetan Plateau based on stable isotope as well as pollen grain analyses. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology DOI:10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.03.030.
0 Response to "Dispersing The Impermeable Fog: #3 – Declining An Invitation To Review A Pseudo-Scientific Paper"