Author Instructions

The format of an "Insight" paper was chosen. Prior to submission of the paper, the author instructions pertaining to an "Insight" paper read (in full):

The Paper Submitted

Reviews and Editorial Decision

From : journal@ecologyandsociety.org
Reply-To : submit@ecologyandsociety.org
Sent : March 26, 2004 2:28:34 PM
To : ilan_kelman@hotmail.com
Subject : Re MS 965203 | EIC - Author | Editorial Decision

--------------------------------------------------
ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY A peer-reviewed, scientific journal
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org
Founding Editor-in-Chief C. S. Holling
Editors-in-Chief Carl Folke and Lance Gunderson
Managing Editors Michelle Lee and Allyson Quinlan
--------------------------------------------------

Manuscript #: 965203, version 1
Author(s): Ilan Kelman*, James Lewis
Title: Ecology and Vulnerability: Islands and Sustainable
Risk Management
Keywords: disaster, disaster ecology, Faroe Islands,
Faroes, island, Koltur, risk, risk ecology,
vulnerability

Manuscript type: insight

Dear Ilan Kelman,

Appended below are the editorial decision and copies of all reviews
for the manuscript which you recently submitted to Ecology and
Society.

You may view the manuscript at the Ecology and Society web
interface:

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/Journal/webaccess

--------------------------------------------------
ACCESSING THE ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY WEB INTERFACE
--------------------------------------------------
Shortcut:


[URL DELETED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS THE PASSWORD]


If this link doesn't work, you will have to enter your username and password
manually:


[USERNAME AND PASSWORD DELETED]


At this site: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/webaccess


Please note these access codes as all future access to the web interface
will require them.


Note: you may edit these codes when you first log in or at any time
in the future using the "Edit Personal Information" menu.


--------------------
EDITORIAL DECISION
--------------------

Thank you for submitting your paper to Ecology and Society. We have now
received three reviews from knowledgeable and thoughtful referees. I am
afraid on the basis of these reviews that we cannot accept your paper for
publication. All the reviewers raise fundamental questions concerning the
framing of the paper. The subject editor provides a comprehensive summary
of their comments.

I hope you will find their comments helpful in revising your manuscript
for another journal and thank you a lot for considering Ecology and
Society for your work.

With best regards

Carl Folke
Editor in Chief

The subject editor writes:
The major criticisms are that the paper while purporting to be a novel
contribution to political ecology of disasters makes no significant
additions to that literature. The reviews point to some loose use of
unexplained terms such as ‘psychological isolation’.

Further the paper in applying these concepts to the notion of islands
makes
specific assumptions concerning islands and ‘islandness’ which are not
borne out by evidence. Review 1 in particular refers to literature which
is
ignored in the paper that demonstrates both that communities on islands
are
inherently resilient and that islands may not have the special
characteristics which have led to the assumption of their vulnerability in
common received wisdom. The paper therefore lacks the depth of analysis on
the fundamental issues of vulnerability and resilience and their
relationship to the physical or ecological characteristics of islands.

Third, the case study application presented does not deal at all with the
issues raised in the rest of the paper. While most of the paper examines
vulnerability to environmental hazards, the case study describes ‘some
kind
of cultural decay represented by a decline in material culture’ (Review
1).

For these reasons the paper does not meet the criteria for publication in
Ecology and Society. I hope the reviews are useful in helping to take
forward your work for publication elsewhere.

-----------------------
REVIEWS FOR VERSION 1
-----------------------

----------
REVIEW 1
----------

Manuscript 965203, version 1

Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper. I think the issue of
island vulnerability is an important one, especially in the context of
developments in natural disaster reduction and in response to global
warming (e.g. IPCC and UNFCC).

It seems to me that we still need to do more work around the notion that
islands are inherently vulnerable. While I have held this view I am
increasingly coming to the conclusion that islands are perhaps no more nor
less vulnerable than any other similar sized pieces of land. In Pacific
Island communities I have found resilience a more common social
characteristic than vulnerability. This is not to say that islands do not
suffer from natural extremes, or that they will be immune from the effects
of global warming. It is, however, a perspective in which we are forced to
examine why they may suffer harm in terms other than simply highlighting
their inherent weaknesses. This then leads us to look at the political,
economic and other factors that play a role in the negative outcomes that
result from environmental change.

I hope the following specific comments will be of use to you.

Line 42-44: The example given to illustrate the notion of vulnerability
doesn’t seem very suitable. It almost seems to be a measure of risk rather
than vulnerability, although I presume that the example is intended to
indicate that older people are more vulnerable to such conditions.

Line 66: this definition, unlike those for resistance and resilience,
doesn’t actually tell us what the term susceptibility means.

Line 136: The separation of war from the general category disaster is
interesting here. Hewitt, for example, considers war to be a category of
hazard (see Hewitt, 1997, chapter 5; chapter 6 also has a useful
discussion of vulnerability).

Line 142: This paragraph introduces the notion of disaster ecology which
“investigates the relationship between society and the social and physical
environment which results in disaster”. I suggest that this is by no means
a new idea and that the work by Gilbert White and his students Burton and
Kates took this approach which was then referred to as the “human ecology
of natural hazards” and in keeping with its thematic orientation took a
systems approach to understanding hazards (see Burton Kates and White,
1979, 1993). In particular they sought to develop a model for
understanding decision making in the face of hazards which is referred in
this article to “risk ecology” (line 163).

A number of writers have since moved towards a more politically situated
approach to vulnerability, in essence combining the human ecology with
political economy (see Blaikie et al., 1994, Cannon, 1994, Watts,1983,
1993, Watts and Bohle, 1993 for a few examples).

Line 172-174: There is reference here to a relative lack of investigation
of vulnerability. However, there has been a reasonable input into this
area of research. For example, the papers listed in the previous paragraph
represent a pretty solid body of work on vulnerability to famine. There is
also work being conducted as part of the IPCC and some of this is being
carried out in relation to island countries such as those in the Pacific
region.

Line 175: This paragraph introduces the idea that islands are useful for
research in that they form a type of the “island laboratory”. While this
might apply from the perspective of ecology is has proven somewhat
problematical for the study of human systems which are rarely closed
systems, or simple systems, even in the smallest and most isolated island
settings. There are also problems with the idea that islands, or more
properly the people and/or communities that live on them, are inherently
vulnerable. Bayliss-Smith et al. (1988) challenge this view this in their
work on Eastern Fiji in the 1970s and 1980s. They similarly observed that
in terms of human geography it is difficult to distinguish islands from
other types of human-environment systems. Moreover, they found that
islands are far from closed systems and the notion that they can be
isolated as laboratories for the study of human systems highly
problematic.

Line 193: While this seems a reasonable assumption on the surface, I am
not sure that it necessarily holds in practice. Continental locations such
as mountainous areas can be cut off for long periods of time as can be the
case when communications links across rivers are broken. Isolated desert
communities are difficult to provide with water during drought. In many
island countries there are now helicopters that can be deployed relatively
rapidly.

Line197-226: The definition of island is a bit vague. Presumably being
surrounded by water is a key aspect, yet this is not addressed. I agree
that islands come in a huge range of sizes, shapes, clusters,
configurations and so on. In fact, herein lies perhaps a major problem
with the main argument of the paper. If islands are extremely difficult to
define, then attaching ecology or vulnerability to the concept of island
is likely to result in even further vagueness.

Line 214: The reference to the Chathams is confusing in that it suggests
that New Zealand is not insular or not composed only of islands.

Line 236: The reference to the most lethal tsunami of the 20th century
being in Papaua New Guinea is problematical. In fact New Guinea (the whole
island including most of Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya) is by some
definitions the largest island in the world. So to link this with the idea
of smallness (previous sentence, line 234) doesn’t quite work.
Furthermore, I do not think that it was the most lethal tsunami of the
previous century. In 1976 two tsunami impacted upon the Philippines (c.
8000 deaths) and Guatemala (over 20,000 deaths). I am not sure that
insularity has a causal link to tsunami occurrence, though islands tend to
have more coast. Also, the geological processes of island building in
Oceania are closely linked to plate tectonics and for this reason many
islands, particularly in the western Pacific are in tectonically active
areas. But there are also continental locations with the same
characteristics.

Line 240: The problems identified in this paragraph are not necessarily
unique to islands but also to many rural areas.

Line 267: It may be more informative to state that harm comes to the human
and ecological systems that exist at island locations.

Line 281: The following paragraphs address the issue of proportionality.
This is important as when they are struck by extreme events the damage on
islands is often proportionately very large. However, while the
proportional impact on islands can be large, so too, can be the
proportional impact on a small isolated rural communities in continents.
Moreover, smallness also gives an increased opportunity to be missed by
disaster altogether, especially in relation to tropical cyclones. This is
something that the long coastlines of the eastern USA or northern
Australia can’t avoid. Although, of course, the impacts on the location of
exact landfall (say a small coastal settlement) will be perhaps
statistically similar to any island of the same area.

Similarly, many islands are parts of larger archipelagos. In these cases
it is rare for all of the islands to be impacted. Traditionally this was
an important factor that enabled resilient approaches to disaster recovery
to emerge. It also ensures that the proportional effects of disasters on
archipelagic countries are lessened.

Line 289: I do agree with the sentiments expressed in the paragraph
starting on this line. Island disasters are often overlooked in
international studies of disaster that seek to rank events using
quantitative measures such as number of deaths, millions of dollars in
damages etc. Few island based disasters are included in such accounts
simply because the numbers are too small. However, this hasn’t stopped the
notion of islands as sites of unusual vulnerability from gaining
widespread currency and the notion of the vulnerability of islands seems
to be getting more deeply entrenched. For example, the notion has a
prominent place in the UNFCC, Agenda 21, the Barbados Declaration (Global
Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing
States) and the Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World
(IDNDR).

Line 312: My comments here relate to the case study. Much of the
discussion thus far in the paper is about island vulnerability in the
context of disasters. However, the vulnerability in the case study does
not refer to extreme natural events but rather some kind of cultural decay
represented by a decline in the physical condition of the material culture
of Koltur Island. It seems to me that this example doesn’t really fit very
well with the ideas discussed in the earlier parts of the paper..

References

Bayliss-Smith, T., R. Bedford, et al. (1998). Islands, islanders and the
world. The colonial and post-colonial experience of Eastern Fiji.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Blaikie, P., T. Cannon, et al. (1994). At risk. Natural hazards, people's
vulnerability and disasters. London, Routledge.

Bryant, Raymond L. (1998) Power, knowledge and political ecology in the
third world: a review. Progress in Physical Geography, 22(1): 79-94

Cannon, T. (1994). Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of 'natural
disasters'. Disasters, development and environment. A. Varley. Chichester,
John Wiley and Sons: 13-30.

Hewitt, K. (1997). Regions of Risk. A geographical introduction to
disasters. Harlow, Addison Wesley Longman.

Peet, Richard and Watts, Michael (1996) Liberation Ecology. Development,
sustainability, and environment in an age of market triumphalism. Chapter
1, in Peet, Richard and Watts, Michael (eds), Liberation Ecologies.
Environment, development social movements. London, Routledge.

Watts, M. (1983) On the poverty of theory: Natural hazards research in
context: 231-261. In Hewitt, K. (ed.) Interpretations of Calamity.

Watts, M. J. (1993). "Hunger, famine and the space of vulnerability."
GeoJournal 30(2): 117-125.

Watts, M. J. and H. G. Bohle (1993). "The space of vulnerability: the
causal structure of hunger and famine." Progress in human geography 17(1):
43-67.

----------
REVIEW 2
----------

Manuscript 965203, version 1

This paper provides a useful discussion of disaster ecology and risk, and
works well as a
review paper, also presenting some nice ideas as to how various issues
might benefit from
small island case studies. However, the "orginal results" towards the end,
while raising one
or two salient points, are very scant. I would recommend that the paper is
revised in either
one of two ways: (i) recast the paper as more of a review, embedding the
material on Koltur
throughout the text, including this as box or removing it altogether, or
(ii) expanding the
material on Koltur and perhaps expanding this to cover some other Faroese
islands in a
more general discussion. I would favour the latter approach.

The sentence in lines 188 and 189 doesn't make much sense to me. In the
following
paragraph I'm not convinced by the the statement that insularity generally
preculdes a
timely response, and would like to see this backed up by some supporting
evidence.

----------
REVIEW 3
----------

Manuscript 965203, version 1

The paper is not suitable for Ecology and Society. Ecology can be used in
a 'hard' sense as in the study of ecosystems, or in a 'soft' sense as a
metaphor for complexity (as in political ecology). In this paper there is
some discussion of ecology in this latter 'soft' sense, but the insights
this approach can offer do not carry through into the case study of
Koltur.

The paper lacks a clear and concise aim. As I read it, it seems wants to
show how combining two 'conecptual models' (line 13)- disaster ecology and
island vulnerability - can help advance sustainable risk management
(presumably, if not explicitly stated, on islands only -?). Yet this is
not clearly enough stated, perhaps because the writing is somewhat
convoluted. In other words, as a reader its not clear to me what this
paper is actually about, and this is reflected in a somewhat passive
abstract and weak conclusions. The paper needs clear direction, and a much
stronger message.

So, then, if line 13 is the aim, then the paper should be principally
conceptual. Certainly the majority of the paper is a discussion of
concepts, but these are not well grounded in the vast literature on
disasters, vulnerability, and political ecology. Pelling. for example, is
drawing on the political ecology approach to disasters established by
Blakie at al, and this creates a problem since what this paper understands
'disaster ecology' to be is pretty much what 'political ecology' is, and
is in any event no advance on existing approaches to disasters. So, the
discussion of disasters offers no advances.

The discussion of island vulnerability is similarly too removed from the
literature on islands, islandness, and hazards. It is also too simplistic,
generalised, and obtuse: - what exactly is 'phsychological isolation'
(line 188); who prioritises islands 'disproportintaley low' (line 189) and
in terms of what (development? environment? disasters? heritage?); are all
islands more vulnerable, and why? The discussion of PNG (line 235-9)
exemplifies the difficulties: PNG is not really a 'small' island, and
people can (and do) migrate inland, into mountains, when necessary (and
this was a response post- the 1998 tsunami).

The case study of Koltur is not well justified. The paper has, for 7 pages
prior, discussed, disasters largely in terms of their impacts on people,
and mostly with reference to developing countries, so a case study of an
island with a population of 2 people, and which is principally concerned
with the state of buildings, seems very out of place.

The paper tries to do too much: it could be a case study of risks to
heritage on Koltur, it could be a discussion of disaster ecology and
island vuylnerability (but much more work is needed here), but I don't
think it can be both.

No discussion of methiods or of data.

Authors' Response

From : ilan_kelman@hotmail.com
Sent : April 1, 2004 8:09:19 PM
To : submit@ecologyandsociety.org, journal@ecologyandsociety.org
CC : datum@gn.apc.org
Subject : RE: MS 965203 | EIC - Author | Editorial Decision

Dear Carl Folke,

Thank you for considering our paper for Ecology and Society and for the reviews. We are naturally disappointed in the editorial decision not to accept the paper, but upon reading the reviews, we have become concerned at the comments provided and the attitudes displayed. We focus on the major criticisms in the reviews which lead to two predominant concerns:

1. A misunderstanding of the nature of an Insight paper.

2. Inappropriate reading of the paper.

-----------

1. A misunderstanding of the nature of an Insight paper.

-Reviewer 3 writes "No discussion of methods or of data". The instructions from Ecology and Society state "A Synthesis or Insight paper, for example, might not include 'Methods' and 'Results' sections.” Reviewer 3 should not have been expecting a discussion of methods. We are also unclear what further discussion of data or further data are being requested.

-Reviewer 3 writes "The discussion of island vulnerability is similarly too removed from the literature on islands, islandness, and hazards." We have referenced plenty of literature on these topics, so to suggest that the paper is "too far removed from the literature" is inaccurate. Furthermore, the instructions from Ecology and Society state "references are to be kept to a minimal set". Reviewer 3 should not have been expecting a long list of references covering all aspects of the islands, islandness, and hazards literature as implied, nor should Reviewer 3 have been expecting a long list of references covering the vulnerability and risk literature (which surprisingly do not seem to be of concern to Reviewer 3 even though our paper focuses on vulnerability, not hazards).

-Similarly, concerns expressed by the Reviewers on lack of evidence for some comments would be easily resolved by adding references, despite the statement that for an Insight paper "references are to be kept to a minimal set".

-Reviewer 3 writes "The paper tries to do too much: it could be a case study of risks to heritage on Koltur, it could be a discussion of disaster ecology and island vulnerability (but much more work is needed here)". The instructions from Ecology and Society state "The degree of 'completeness' required of Insight papers is less than that required of Research papers'. We agree with Reviewer 3 that much more work is needed in all the areas covered by our paper and we agree that the paper covers a wide range of topics, but comments from Reviewers 1 and 2 seem to suggest that our paper represents "succinct 'nuggets' of insight" as demanded by Ecology and Society for an Insight paper.

-Reviewer 2 states that our "original results" are "very scant". We agree. The instructions from Ecology and Society state "A Synthesis or Insight paper, for example, might not include 'Methods' and 'Results' sections." Reviewer 2 should not have been expecting detailed original results.

-----------

2. Inappropriate reading of the paper.

-The subject editor, Reviewer 1, and Reviewer 3 state that the case study of Koltur is inappropriate because the vulnerabilities discussed for Koltur do not match what the rest of the paper discusses as vulnerability. On line 246, we specifically mention "preserving their culture and heritage" as a vulnerability which is "as dangerous and important" as extreme natural events. The example we chose therefore matches with the discussion in the earlier parts of the paper, in contrary to the subject editor's assessment that it "does not deal at all with the issues raised in the rest of the paper". We could, of course, have chosen many other examples, including extreme environmental events, but given the first part of the paper and all the topics discussed in it, there is no specific reason to request an extreme environmental event for the case study.

-Similarly, Reviewer 3's comment that "a case study of an island with a population of 2 people, and which is principally concerned with the state of buildings, seems very out of place" illustrates a surprising misunderstanding of the place of heritage in a society. Perhaps we should have been pedantic in explaining that heritage buildings represent much more to a culture than the physical structure and that the vulnerability process issues represented by their physical state represent much deeper and broader issues than contracting an engineer and architect to repair them physically.

-The subject editor, Reviewer 1, and Reviewer 3 seem to think that we should be discussing political ecology. The term political ecology is never used in our paper, except in one reference. Instead, the approach in the paper is disaster ecology and risk ecology as defined in the paper, not political ecology or human ecology as defined by other authors. Disaster and risk ecologies have differences from political ecology and human ecology as discussed by other authors. If we had wished to discuss, analyse, review, or compare with other ecologies, we would have done so. We chose not to do so in order to stay within the 4,000 word limit and because that would have yielded a paper completely different to the one we wrote. We are particularly mystified why the subject editor writes that we are "purporting to be a novel contribution to political ecology of disasters". We make no such claim in the paper, in particular by not using the term "political ecology".

-The subject editor and Reviewer 1 suggest that we do not consider the resilience of islands. Our definition of vulnerability, as stated in the paper, explicitly includes resilience (lines 64-65) and discusses resilience in an example given (lines 71-83). We propose a definition of vulnerability which is based on the literature we referenced and which matches literature which we have not mentioned (e.g. the second edition of Blaikie et al. 1994 which is now Wisner et al. 2004; Klein and Nicholls, 1999; Capobianco et al., 1999.) We felt that referring to "vulnerability (i.e. susceptibility, resistance, and resilience)" throughout the paper would be less appropriate than referring to "vulnerability" since we have specifically defined vulnerability to include susceptibility, resistance, and resilience. Rather than contradicting the literature not referenced (as opposed to "ignored", according to the subject editor), our definition complements it.

-Reviewer 1 refers to vulnerability as a "social characteristic" and suggests that our paper does not address resilience as a "social characteristic". Lines 96-107 explicitly refer to vulnerability (including resilience, as per the definition adopted in the paper) as being beyond the present state of social characteristics. Reviewer 1 goes on to state that that people in our field must "look at the political, economic and other factors that play a role in the negative outcomes that result from environmental change". We agree. In fact, we express similar sentiments in lines 102-107; however, lines 240-248 explicitly consider vulnerability beyond the "environmental change" on which Reviewer 1 focuses. For example, Reviewer 1 mentions "a pretty solid body of work on vulnerability to famine" and IPCC work. That work addresses an important--but rather small--aspect of vulnerability. Reviewer 1 avoids mentioning all the aspects of vulnerability suggested by our paper which do not have a "pretty solid body of work".

References:

Capobianco, M., H.J. DeVriend, R.J. Nicholls, and M.J.F. Stive. 1999. "Coastal Area Impact and Vulnerability Assessment: The Point of View of a Morphodynamic Modeller". Journal of Coastal Research, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 701-716.

Klein, R.J.T. and R.J. Nicholls. 1999. "Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change". Ambio, vol. 28, no. 2, March 1999, pp. 182-187.

Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2004. At Risk, 2nd ed. Routledge, London.

-----------

We would nonetheless like to thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed notes to which we have not responded. Those remarks are useful and provide intriguing discussion points, but they do not invalidate what we wrote originally. They are a simple matter of:

(a) Clarifying some sentences. For example, Reviewer 1 states "The separation of war from the general category disaster is interesting here". We made no such separation and it is not our view that war is separate from the general category of disaster. Similarly, Reviewer 1 writes "In 1976 two tsunami impacted upon the Philippines (c. 8000 deaths) and Guatemala (over 20,000 deaths)". EM-DAT run by CRED (http://www.em-dat.net) is the most comprehensive, international disaster database existing yet does not mention either of these events. EM-DAT, though, has many errors and inconsistencies, so our statement on the PNG tsunami could either reference EM-DAT (2004) or be corrected if further references would be provided. For example, EM-DAT mentions a 1976 earthquake in Guatemala which killed 23,000 people and a 1976 earthquake in the Philippines which killed 6,000 people.

(b) Adding more detailed discussion on the issues raised as long as such discussion keeps the paper within the word limit. For example, Reviewer 1 makes several suggestions which are marked as opinions or suggestions rather than facts, but these are nonetheless useful viewpoints which could be countered by, or supported with, further evidence.

(c) Noting that Reviewer 1's experience and ideas are not necessarily relevant for all islands. Reviewer 1 mentions only "Pacific island communities" in his/her experience while helicopters are hardly a panacea for many island communities given their limitations, including pilot skills (e.g. instrument flying rules vs visual flying rules) and load-carrying ability. The Faroe Islands, for example, use helicopters extensively (weather-permitting) while the Chatham Islands rarely use helicopters.

Given the above discussion--in particular our reaction to the main points raised by the subject editor in which we describe the errors made by the reviewers and the subject editor--we must reiterate our disappointment in, and concerns about, the way in which our paper has been reviewed.

Regards,

Ilan and James

Continuing Correspondence

From : calle@system.ecology.su.se
Reply-To : calle@system.ecology.su.se
Sent : April 10, 2004 6:13:18 PM
To : ilan_kelman@hotmail.com
Subject : Your manuscript MS965203

Dear Dr. Kelman,

Thanks for your email and I understand your disappointment of having your paper rejected for publication in Ecology and Society.

Before we make a final decision on a manuscript we carefully evaluate its merit through a rigorous review process and therefore we very seldom, if ever, change our editorial decisions.

This is also true in this case. I have been in contact with the subject editor and we both agree that the fundamental critiques of the reviews remain and we believe they are sound.

I am sorry that I have to deliver this negative response on your request and wish you well in finding another outlet for your manuscript.

With my very best regards

Carl Folke
Editor in Chief

From : ilan_kelman@hotmail.com
Sent : April 10, 2004 9:33:56 PM
To : calle@system.ecology.su.se
CC : datum@gn.apc.org
Subject : RE: Your manuscript MS965203

Dear Carl Folke,

Thank you for your message and for taking the time to follow up. I am surprised and mystified at why you have declined to address the issues raised. In particular:

1. Your reviewers and subject editor appear not to have read the author instructions for an Insight paper. If they did read these instructions, then many of their principal comments do not serve as critiques of the paper.

2. The most severe content critiques of the paper suggested that (a) our paper did not address items which we did address and (b) our paper made statements which we did not make.

For specific examples of the above two points, including line-by-line references, I refer you to my previous email. In case you no longer have access to that email, for your convenience I have put the sequence of events and our correspondence online at http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/islandvulnerability/ecologyandsociety.html [NOTE: This website has changed to http://www.islandvulnerability.org/ecologyandsociety.html A redirect from the old website to the new website was in place for six months.] We look forward to a more appropriate response.

Thank you again for your time,
Ilan

From : ilan_kelman@hotmail.com
Sent : May 5, 2004 5:28:06 AM
To : calle@system.ecology.su.se
CC : datum@gn.apc.org
Subject : RE: Your manuscript MS965203

Dear Carl Folke,

I still await your response to my email of 10 April 2004. The issues raised in my email of 1 April 2004 are neither trivial nor frivolous, since they cover (a) the reviewers and the subject editor contradicting the journal's author instructions (at least four examples were given) and (b) mistakes made by the reviewers and subject editor in quoting the paper and in claims about what the paper lacks (at least five examples were given).

I hope that you would agree that the academic integrity of a journal significantly depends on the rigour and fairness of its peer review process. Hence, it would be helpful if you would have the courtesy to deal with the points raised in a thorough manner rather than via a general response, such as that which you sent on 10 April 2004 which avoids the issues raised.

Ilan

From : ilan_kelman@hotmail.com
Sent : May 9, 2004 8:03:41 AM
To : N.Adger@uea.ac.uk
CC : datum@gn.apc.org
Subject : Ecology and Society Manuscript MS965203

Dear W Neil Adger,

Following the review of "Ecology and Society" manuscript MS965203 entitled "Ecology and Vulnerability: Islands and Sustainable Risk Management", I sent a list of specific concerns to Carl Folke covering comments in the reviews which (a) contradict the author instructions from "Ecology and Society", (b) state that the paper makes comments which the paper does not make, and (c) state that the paper fails to cover topics which the paper does cover. In a surprising display of discourtesy, Carl Folke has thus far declined to address these specific points despite three requests to him to do so.

I therefore write to you under the assumption that, as subject editor for this paper, you would have the professionalism to clarify your remarks. In particular:

-You wrote that the paper is "purporting to be a novel contribution to political ecology of disasters". The paper makes no such statement nor do we ever imply or hint that we are trying to contribute to the field of the political ecology of disasters.

-You and Reviewer 1 suggest that we do not consider the resilience of islands. Our definition of vulnerability, as stated in the paper, explicitly includes resilience (lines 64-65) and discusses resilience in an example given (lines 71-83). We propose a definition of vulnerability which is based on the literature we referenced and which matches literature which we have not mentioned (e.g. the second edition of Blaikie et al. 1994 which is Wisner et al. 2004; Klein and Nicholls, 1999; Capobianco et al., 1999.) We felt that referring to "vulnerability (i.e. susceptibility, resistance, and resilience)" throughout the paper would be less appropriate than referring to "vulnerability" since we have specifically defined vulnerability to include susceptibility, resistance, and resilience. Rather than contradicting the literature not referenced (as opposed to "ignored", according to you), our definition is based on, and complements, it.
Capobianco, M., H.J. DeVriend, R.J. Nicholls, and M.J.F. Stive. 1999. "Coastal Area Impact and Vulnerability Assessment: The Point of View of a Morphodynamic Modeller". Journal of Coastal Research, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 701-716.
Klein, R.J.T. and R.J. Nicholls. 1999. "Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change". Ambio, vol. 28, no. 2, March 1999, pp. 182-187.
Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2004. At Risk, 2nd ed. Routledge, London.

-You, Reviewer 1, and Reviewer 3 state that the case study of Koltur is inappropriate because the vulnerabilities discussed for Koltur do not match what the rest of the paper discusses as vulnerability. On line 246, we specifically mention "preserving their culture and heritage" as a vulnerability which is "as dangerous and important" as extreme natural events. Thus, your statement that the case study "does not deal at all with the issues raised in the rest of the paper" is not supported by the evidence of the paper's text.

Other concerns include:

-Reviewer 3 writes "No discussion of methods or of data". The instructions from Ecology and Society state "A Synthesis or Insight paper, for example, might not include 'Methods' and 'Results' sections." Reviewer 3 should not have been expecting a discussion of methods. We are also unclear what further discussion of data or further data are being requested.

-Reviewer 3 writes "The discussion of island vulnerability is similarly too removed from the literature on islands, islandness, and hazards." We have referenced plenty of literature on these topics, so to suggest that the paper is "too far removed from the literature" is not supported by the evidence in the paper's text. Furthermore, the instructions from Ecology and Society state "references are to be kept to a minimal set". Reviewer 3 should not have been expecting a long list of references covering all aspects of the islands, islandness, and hazards literature as implied, nor should Reviewer 3 have been expecting a long list of references covering the vulnerability and risk literature (which surprisingly do not seem to be of concern to Reviewer 3 even though the paper focuses on vulnerability, not hazards).

-Similarly, concerns expressed by the Reviewers on the lack of evidence for some comments would be easily resolved by adding references, despite the statement that for an Insight paper "references are to be kept to a minimal set".

-Reviewer 3 writes "The paper tries to do too much: it could be a case study of risks to heritage on Koltur, it could be a discussion of disaster ecology and island vulnerability (but much more work is needed here)". The instructions from Ecology and Society state "The degree of 'completeness' required of Insight papers is less than that required of Research papers'. We agree with Reviewer 3 that much more work is needed in all the areas covered by our paper and we agree that the paper covers a wide range of topics, but comments from Reviewers 1 and 2 seem to suggest that our paper represents "succinct 'nuggets' of insight" as demanded by Ecology and Society for an Insight paper.

-Reviewer 2 states that our "original results" are "very scant". We agree. The instructions from Ecology and Society state "A Synthesis or Insight paper, for example, might not include 'Methods' and 'Results' sections." Reviewer 2 should not have been expecting detailed original results.

-Reviewer 3's comment that "a case study of an island with a population of 2 people, and which is principally concerned with the state of buildings, seems very out of place" illustrates a surprising misunderstanding of the place of heritage in a society. Perhaps we should have been pedantic in explaining that heritage buildings represent much more to a culture than the physical structure and that the vulnerability process issues represented by their physical state represent much deeper and broader issues than contracting an engineer and architect to repair them physically.

-Reviewer 1 refers to vulnerability as a "social characteristic" and suggests that our paper does not address resilience as a "social characteristic". Lines 96-107 explicitly refer to vulnerability (including resilience, as per the definition adopted in the paper) as being beyond the present state of physical characteristics. Social aspects are explicitly mentioned. Reviewer 1 goes on to state that that people in our field must "look at the political, economic and other factors that play a role in the negative outcomes that result from environmental change". We agree. In fact, we express similar sentiments in lines 102-107; however, lines 240-248 explicitly consider vulnerability beyond the "environmental change" on which Reviewer 1 focuses. For example, Reviewer 1 mentions "a pretty solid body of work on vulnerability to famine" and IPCC work. That work addresses an important--but rather small--aspect of vulnerability. Reviewer 1 avoids mentioning all the aspects of vulnerability suggested by our paper which do not have a "pretty solid body of work".

-Reviewer 1 states "The separation of war from the general category disaster is interesting here". The paper makes no such separation and it is not our view that war is separate from the general category of disaster. Similarly, Reviewer 1 writes "In 1976 two tsunami impacted upon the Philippines (c. 8000 deaths) and Guatemala (over 20,000 deaths)". EM-DAT run by CRED (http://www.em-dat.net) is the most comprehensive, international disaster database existing yet does not mention either of these events. EM-DAT, though, has many errors and inconsistencies, so our statement on the PNG tsunami could either reference EM-DAT (2004) or could be corrected if further references would be provided. For example, EM-DAT mentions a 1976 earthquake in Guatemala which killed 23,000 people and a 1976 earthquake in the Philippines which killed 6,000 people.

-Reviewer 3 states "PNG is not really a 'small' island" yet provides no evidence for that statement. PNG is officially a SIDS (Small Island Developing State; see http://www.sidsnet.org/index.html). Much as we might sympathise with Reviewer 3's personal opinion, we have little option but to accept the current fact that PNG is considered to be a small island by the international community.

-Similarly, Reviewer 1 makes several comments which are marked as opinions or suggestions rather than as facts, but these are nonetheless useful viewpoints which could be countered by, or supported with, further evidence.

I hope that you would agree that the academic integrity of a journal significantly depends on the rigour and fairness of its peer review process. Hence, it would be helpful if you would have the courtesy to deal with the points raised in a thorough manner rather than via a general response.

Thank you for your time,
Ilan

From : n.adger@uea.ac.uk
Sent : May 17, 2004 4:35:17 PM
To : ilan_kelman@hotmail.com
CC : calle@system.ecology.su.se
Subject : Re: Ecology and Society Manuscript MS965203

Dear Ilan

Many thanks for your message. I fully agree that the academic integrity of journals is completely dependent on the review process being rigorous and fair. And I thank you for interest in Ecology and Society.

I am disappointed that you do not accept the decision of the Editor in this case, but the review process has been undertaken with much rigour and fairness. The Editor in Chief made the decision on your manuscript I am sure after careful consideration and also considered carefully your subsequent appeal. If he has made the decision not to publish the paper and you still do not accept the judgement then you need to take it up with him again.

I hope that the information provided in the review comments and those of the subject editor are helpful in revising your article and that you find a suitable outlet for its publication.

Best wishes

Neil Adger

From : ilan_kelman@hotmail.com
Sent : May 17, 2004 5:47:29 PM
To : n.adger@uea.ac.uk
CC : calle@system.ecology.su.se,datum@gn.apc.org
Subject : Re: Ecology and Society Manuscript MS96520

Dear Neil Adger,

Thank you kindly for your email (copied to Carl Folke, as I have done with this email) and I am pleased to hear that we are starting from the common basis that the academic integrity of journals is dependent on the review process being rigorous and fair. I hope, then, that you would further agree that people tasked to evaluate a paper (a) should not contradict the author instructions from the journal, (b) should not state that the paper makes comments which the paper does not make, and (c) should not state that the paper fails to cover topics which the paper does cover.

My email to you of 9 May 2004 listed several specific examples, including references to line numbers of the paper, of these three issues. Neither you nor Carl Folke has addressed any of these points despite my hope, as stated in my email to you of 9 May 2004, that "you would have the professionalism to clarify your remarks".

In case you did not exactly understand my request, I shall be pedantic. You are listed as the subject editor for this paper. My email to you of 9 May 2004 states that you are the subject editor for this paper and you do not oppose this statement. In the review of this paper, the subject editor made remarks and presumably accepted the reviewers' remarks. Many of those remarks fall into the categories outlined above. Hence, it would be helpful if you would please clarify those remarks--some of which you wrote--rather than giving a general response which fails to address the issues raised.

Thank you for your continuing time on this issue and, as I have requested before, I hope that this time you shall provide a more thorough response,

Ilan

From: ik227@cam.ac.uk
To: n.adger@uea.ac.uk,calle@system.ecology.su.se
Cc: datum@gn.apc.org
Date: 28 May 2004 14:55:03 +0100
Subject: Re: Ecology and Society Manuscript MS96520

Dear Carl Folke and Neil Adger,

I am still awaiting a proper response to my emails which outline how comments from your reviewers and from Neil Adger (a) contradict the author instructions from "Ecology and Society", (b) state that the paper makes comments which the paper does not make, and (c) state that the paper fails to cover topics which the paper does cover.

This silence displays remarkable personal rudeness along with surprising indifference to a fair and thorough peer-review process. Furthermore, I have a growing worry that you cannot respond to the concerns raised, hence you are deliberately trying to avoid the issue by first hiding behind the mask of general commentary and then ignoring the follow-ups.

I would appreciate it if you would have the courtesy and professionalism to respond promptly to the specific issues raised.

Ilan

Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:13:21 +0100 (BST)
From: ik227@hermes.cam.ac.uk
To: n.adger@uea.ac.uk, calle@system.ecology.su.se
Cc: datum@gn.apc.org
Subject: Re: Ecology and Society Manuscript MS96520

Dear Carl Folke and Neil Adger,

I am still waiting for you to respond properly to the serious concerns raised about the review process for Ecology and Society Manuscript MS96520.

Ilan

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 22:22:35 +0200
From: calle@system.ecology.su.se
To: ik227@hermes.cam.ac.uk
Cc: N.Adger@uea.ac.uk,lgunder@emory.edu,mlee@ecologyandsociety.org
Subject: Re: Ecology and Society Manuscript MS96520

Dear Dr. Kelman,

I have re-read your concerns in detail regarding the rejection of your manuscript from Ecology and Society. I have also discussed the paper and review process with the co-editor in chief Dr. Lance Gunderson. While we to some extent understand your frustrations in relation to the nature of an insight paper (e.g. references) and what you refer to as inappropriate reading of the paper (e.g. political ecology), we support the reviewers' and subject editor's assessment of the content of the manuscript and stand by our decision to not consider the submission for further review. We wish you well in seeking publication of the manuscript in other outlets. Our files on this manuscript are now closed.

Regards,
Carl Folke

Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 16:31:54 +0100 (BST)
From: ik227@hermes.cam.ac.uk
To: calle@system.ecology.su.se
Cc: N.Adger@uea.ac.uk,lgunder@emory.edu,mlee@ecologyandsociety.org
Subject: Re: Ecology and Society Manuscript MS96520

Dear Carl Folke,

Thank you kindly for your time and further comments regarding Ecology and Society Manuscript MS96520. I am still surprised at, and disappointed in, your continual avoidance of the detailed issues raised.

For example, the reviewers contradicted the author instructions for an Insight paper beyond the issue of references which you highlight. I still await an explanation of why the reviewers requested material which the author instructions specifically indicated should be excluded. Similarly, you raise the issue of political ecology again without discussing that the subject editor wrote that the paper was "purporting to be a novel contribution to political ecology of disasters" when the paper makes no such claim. The subject editor has also failed to respond to this specific query. Other examples of statements from the reviewers and subject editor which are not supported by the paper's content were provided along with a few statements which contradict data for which full references were provided. Neither you nor the subject editor has addressed any of these specific statements.

I am concerned that only general statements which skirt the specific points raised have been provided, thereby failing to address the serious issues identified. My worry continues to grow with regards to your seeming indifference to a fair and thorough peer-review process along with the absence of explanations for simple, straightforward points which reveal contradictions by comparing quotations from "Ecology and Society" personnel with quotations from the paper. No option exists except to keep the file on this manuscript open until an adequate response is received which I trust you will have the decency to provide promptly.

Regards,
Ilan

Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:36:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: ik227@hermes.cam.ac.uk
To: calle@system.ecology.su.se
Cc: N.Adger@uea.ac.uk,lgunder@emory.edu,mlee@ecologyandsociety.org
Subject: Re: Ecology and Society Manuscript MS96520

Dear Carl Folke,

It has been more than eight months since I first contacted you with a list of specific questions regarding how this paper was reviewed including my requests for clarifications on comments from reviewers or the subject editor which:
1. Contradict the author instructions from your journal.
2. Contain factual errors to which I responded to with supporting references.
3. State that the paper makes comments which the paper does not make.
4. State that the paper fails to cover topics which the paper does cover.
Throughout this process, I have been patient, giving you ample time to respond appropriately and following up when you failed to do so. I have also meticulously detailed each question I had, providing evidence in support of my request for clarification. In contrast, your responses were tardy, were general, and consistently ignored many specific items brought to your attention. On the occasion when you deigned to address an item, you invariably failed to provide a full answer which provided helpful clarification.

Professions from humanitarian aid workers to engineers to doctors have recognised the importance of professional accountability and have set up systems to deal thoroughly with concerns that are raised. It is unclear why you feel that you are in a position to avoid responsibility for your words and decisions and why you feel that you are above the process of accountability which others have recognised as being essential to establish credibility and acceptance amongst their peers and beyond.

In fact, in his general response of 17 May 2004, your subject editor Neil Adger could not even bring himself to admit that he had been the subject editor for this paper. I am uncertain why "Ecology and Society" insists on playing such petty games rather than dealing with straightforward queries in a straightforward manner. Perhaps Neil Adger did not read the paper before passing judgement but does not have the professionalism or maturity to admit to his apparently factually incorrect comments.

Overall, it is a strange display of unconscionable arrogance to avoid queries laid out plainly with supporting evidence and to deliberately avoid specific questions which should yield simple answers. Nonetheless, it is still in your hands to rectify your lack of full response and your inability to take responsibility for your comments which, of course, could yet indicate that concerns regarding the reviews which I initially raised are invalid.

You might also realise that you would then be fulfilling the suggestion by "Ecology and Society" of the necessity of "interactive discussion, and other novel inventions to encourage reader interaction" which was seen at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/masthead/masthead.html on 19 December 2004. Or perhaps you expose yet more contradictions in your behaviour and attitudes by applying this statement only when you wish to.

Ilan

Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:07:50 +0100 (BST)
From: ik227@hermes.cam.ac.uk
To: calle@system.ecology.su.se,N.Adger@uea.ac.uk,lgunder@emory.edu,mlee@ecologyandsociety.org
Subject: Re: Ecology and Society Manuscript MS96520

Dear Carl Folke,

More than twelve months have elapsed since I first contacted you with a list of specific questions regarding how this paper was reviewed including my requests for clarifications on comments from reviewers and the subject editor. Throughout this time, I have waited patiently for a detailed response, yet you and your colleagues have ignored several emails, failed to answer specific questions, and provided no justification for judgemental comments made. This lack of accountability and transparency, along with the disinterest displayed in maintaining the scientific integrity of your journal and the process by which editorial decisions are made, is disturbing.

Your and your colleagues' attitudes are actions are particularly disappointing considering the straightforwardness of some of the questions. For example:

-The subject editor, Reviewer 1, and Reviewer 3 stated that the case study of Koltur is inappropriate because the vulnerabilities discussed for Koltur do not match what the rest of the paper discusses as vulnerability. On line 246, the paper specifically mentioned "preserving their culture and heritage" as a vulnerability which is "as dangerous and important" as extreme environmental events.

-The subject editor and Reviewer 1 suggested that the paper did not consider the resilience of islands. The definition of vulnerability stated in the paper explicitly includes resilience (lines 64-65). The paper also discussed resilience in an example given (lines 71-83). This definition is based on the literature referenced in the paper and matches literature which was not mentioned in the paper, as described in my email of 1 April 2004.

-Reviewer 3 stated "PNG is not really a 'small' island" yet PNG is officially a SIDS (Small Island Developing State; see http://www.sidsnet.org/sids_list.html). Much as the reviewer is entitled to a personal opinion, it is challenging to change the facts.

These three points exemplify the concerns raised in the long list which I sent you, including the review comments which contradicted the author instructions from your journal. You and your colleagues still have the opportunity to fully and properly address the issues raised and to stop contravening your journal's stated policies.

Ilan

From: ik227@cam.ac.uk
To: calle@system.ecology.su.se,N.Adger@uea.ac.uk,lgunder@emory.edu,mlee@ecologyandsociety.org
Date: 31 Jul 2005 17:27:53 +0100
Subject: Re: Ecology and Society Manuscript MS96520

Dear Carl Folke and Neil Adger,

I would still appreciate a response to my email of 5 April 2005 along with the previous correspondence which detailed specific questions. I do not understand why you are so scared of responding to simple scientific queries, but perhaps the reason is immaterial.

If you do know how to answer the questions, I would appreciate it if you would do so in order to stop repetitive emails. If you do not know how to answer the questions, then it would be helpful for you to admit that.

It would be a pity if you were simply unwilling to answer the questions, because that would be a disservice to scientific honesty and to the ethics of scientific investigation. It would also make a mockery of your journal's stated policies which your actions seem to suggest are followed by you only when you choose to follow them.

Ilan

From: ilan@ucar.edu
To: calle@system.ecology.su.se,N.Adger@uea.ac.uk,lgunder@emory.edu,mlee@ecologyandsociety.org
Cc: M.Hulme@uea.ac.uk,ragnar.elmgren@ecology.su.se,r.k.turner@uea.ac.uk
Date: 20 Feb 2006 15:57:54 -0700
Subject: Ethics of Carl Folke and Neil Adger

Dear Carl Folke and Neil Adger,

As you have declined to respond to my emails regarding your unethical behaviour, I am forced to summarise the issues below. As you know, fully-detailed documentation regarding each of these points is available from the past two years. It is disappointing that you refuse to answer scientific questions regarding your comments, thereby promoting dishonesty in the scientific process while illustrating your disinterest in accountability and responsibility.

Unfortunately, unwillingness to deal with such issues brings disrepute not only to yourselves and to your work, but also to your institutes. Research ethics and scientific integrity should be fundamental aspects of our work and should not be evaded.

It is such a pity that we have been unable to resolve this matter amiably while maintaining respect for the scientific process, but I regret that it is your lack of addressing my specific scientific questions--despite my patience in waiting months for a reply--which has led to this stage,

Ilan

1. Lack of accountability.

I have provided more than a dozen specific examples of you and your reviewers (a) contradicting your own documented policies, (b) stating that our paper did not address items which we did address (I provided line references to these items), (c) stating that our paper made statements which we did not make (you could not provide line references for these claims), and (d) making factual errors (statements which I backed up with verifiable references). You have not responded adequately to any of these statements. The closest you have come to illustrating that you might have read and thought about my detailed comments is Carl Folke's vague statement in his email of 2 July 2004 that "we to some extent understand your frustrations in relation to the nature of an insight paper (e.g. references) and what you refer to as inappropriate reading of the paper (e.g. political ecology)". You have not acknowledged my four emails since July 2004 and you failed to respond to three of my emails prior to that, despite the detailed comments and questions which I had listed. Your disinterest in accountability is demonstrated by (a) your unwillingness to explain your decisions, (b) your failure to reply fully to queries, and (c) your apparent lack of documented and due process regarding decisions.

2. Failure to take responsibility.

In Neil Adger's email of 17 May 2004, he declined to admit that he had made the comments attributed to him. He also refused to accept responsibility for those comments in my subsequent correspondence to him. It is unethical (and childish too) to refuse to admit that you made comments attributed to you. By failing to respond to the specifics which I detailed, both Carl Folke and Neil Adger have further failed to take responsibility for the catalogue of concerns which I identified and evidenced in their and their reviewers' comments and behaviour.

3. Dishonesty.

I provided at least four examples of you and your reviewers contradicting the journal's author instructions. I have also pointed out that your lack of accountability contradicts the journal's stated suggestion of "interactive discussion, and other novel inventions to encourage reader interaction" (quoted on 19 December 2004). Finally, I documented at least five examples of factual errors in the your and your reviewers' comments. Not one of these points has been addressed. Your apparent lack of honesty on these matters makes a mockery of the scientific review process, particularly the obvious principle that statements made should be backed up by verifiable references and facts, as I have done.

Subject: Re: Ethics of Carl Folke and Neil Adger
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:26:06 +0100
From: ragnar.elmgren@ecology.su.se
To: ilan@ucar.edu, calle@system.ecology.su.se, N.Adger@uea.ac.uk, lgunder@emory.edu, mlee@ecologyandsociety.org
CC: M.Hulme@uea.ac.uk, r.k.turner@uea.ac.uk

Dear Dr. Kelman,

You have sent me an e-letter concerning Professors Folke and Adger. The letter seems to refer to their actions as referees for an unspecified journal. This has nothing to do with Prof. Folke's scientific research or duties in my department. Professor Folke is highly respected member of our academic staff, whom we are happy and proud to have at our department. Professor Adger is not in our department. I therefore suggest you send your future correspondence in this matter to proper forum, namely the journal with which you seem to have a difference.

Sincerely

Ragnar Elmgren
Professor and Head
Department of Systems Ecology
Stockholm University
SE-10691 Stockholm
Sweden
Telephone: +46 8 16 4016
Fax: +46 8 15 8417
http://www.ecology.su.se/staff/personal.asp?id=66

From: ilan@ucar.edu
Subject: Re: Ethics of Carl Folke and Neil Adger
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0700
From: ilan@ucar.edu
To: ragnar.elmgren@ecology.su.se
CC: calle@system.ecology.su.se, N.Adger@uea.ac.uk, lgunder@emory.edu, mlee@ecologyandsociety.org, M.Hulme@uea.ac.uk, r.k.turner@uea.ac.uk

Dear Prof. Elmgren,

Thank you kindly for your response and for the further information, although I hope that it would not be untoward to admit that I am puzzled why you would feel that apparent unethical conduct by a member of your department's staff would not be of concern to you. I am certain that you would agree that, as scientists, we are obligated to behave in an ethical manner in all our duties.

I wonder, therefore, if you might let me know whether or not your department or institute has an ethics policy to which staff are required to adhere? If so, would it be possible to send me that policy? If not, I wonder if further information might be available regarding how your department and institute would deal with apparent unethical conduct by a member of staff?

Thank you also for the advice regarding contacting the journal in question. The journal is "Ecology and Society", of which Carl Folke is an Editor-in-Chief. He and his editorial colleagues have not addressed the scientific questions and ethical issues which I have raised, despite my patient attempts for nearly two years to seek answers.

If you would not be the correct person to contact at this stage, please accept my apologies for bothering you. Would it be possible to let me know who I should contact? Again, the concerns relate to Carl Folke's apparent unethical behaviour, as documented in my previous email, during work which he carries out as a member of your department.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance,

Ilan

Subject: Re: Ethics
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:13:05 +0100
From: ragnar.elmgren@ecology.su.se
To: ilan@ucar.edu

Dear Dr. Kelman.

Your two letters have contained no proof or even reasonable indications of unethical conduct by any party, only unsupported accusations. It now appears that these refer to a decision by a journal of which Carl Folke is editor to reject a paper you have submitted to them. Editorial decisions of whether to accept a paper or not are a matter of the editor's judgement, and there is no formal requirement for a detailed discussion of all objections raised by a rejected author. That would make it impossible to edit scientific journals. There is no right to have a paper published by a journal, and when we submit a manuscript for publication, it should be with the understanding that the editor(s) have the final say on whether to accept or reject papers, and that there is no court of appeal for their decision. We have all had papers rejected by journals, and the appropriate response is to try to improve the paper further and then submit it to another journal, of which there are plenty. I advise you to do the same.

Our department has no written down "ethical policy" of its own, but operates under the laws and regulations for Swedish state empoyees, and generally accepted rules of conduct for scientists. There is nothing in either requiring a journal editor to give detailed explanations for a rejection. If he does so, it is as a courtesy to the author, and the editor decides himself how far he should go in this. Carl Folke's work for the journal concerned is done in his spare time, and is not part of his departmental duties. I refered you to the journal with which you have an issue, and that advice is still valid. I do not intend to engage if further discussion of this matter, since it does not concern the Department of Systems Ecology.

Sincerely

Ragnar Elmgren

Subject: Re: Ethics
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:45:08 -0700
From: ilan@ucar.edu
To: ragnar.elmgren@ecology.su.se

Dear Prof. Elmgren,

Thank you very much for your response which represents the most detailed and considered reply that I have yet received on this matter. The information on Swedish regulations regarding ethical concerns about staff members was particularly useful. I am happy to trust you on this issue without seeking further documentation. I agree with you that this information indicates that there would appear to be no procedural basis for proceeding with my concerns about Carl Folke's apparent ethical misconduct.

I appreciate that, as you state, there would remain little reason for you to engage in further discussion of this matter. For completeness, I hope that it would not be a problem for me to address the implied questions in your email, so I append below further details regarding the concerns you raised. I recognise that this further information would not necessitate further discussion or input from you; it is for information only in case it might be of interest.

If I may, I would wish to emphasise that journals are increasingly adopting formal accountability procedures. See point 4 below. Ethics is slowly becoming viewed as important in scientific publication, a trend which I support.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to provide prompt and fair responses to my messages and for directly answering my questions. That is more than I have received from the others involved in this matter and it goes a long way to helping to place into the context the wider issues which this incident has revealed.

Best wishes for your continuing work,

Ilan

1. The evidence against Carl Folke and Neil Adger is detailed at http://www.islandvulnerability.org/ecologyandsociety.html Carl Folke was informed about this website on 10 April 2004. I consider an ethical approach to include transparency, i.e. to be completely open and honest, providing everyone with full information, rather than nattering behind people's backs and criticising them without an opportunity for them and others to counter those criticisms.

2. To use your terminology, I would suggest that the material on that website definitely provides "reasonable indications of unethical conduct" rather than "unsupported accusations". Whether or not the material is "proof" is my question and I would accept the standard of "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". Please note that this matter started out with only questions for which I was seeking answers. When those questions were not answered, it became apparent that more fundamental ethical issues were emerging. As the material indicates, my concerns about the apparent unethical behaviour of Carl Folke and Neil Adger (i.e. accountability, responsibility, and honesty although conflict of interest and transparency also play a role) were not as much in the rejection of the paper, as in their subsequent behaviour. These two issues ought to be separated.

3. The paper was accepted by another journal with no changes except for requesting that another case study be added. The paper is now in press. Would this development reveal anything about "Ecology and Society"?

4. Your statements regarding the scientific publication process (e.g. "the editor(s) have the final say" and "no court of appeal") identify the heart of the ethical issues surrounding scientific publication which I raise in my concerns. I disagree with these attitudes because they are unethical. They promote secrecy, cliques, dishonesty, and backroom deals rather than consistency, fairness, and rigour in peer review. I am supported by, for example, http://www.publicationethics.org.uk and BMJ's excellent work, especially on their argument for non-anonymous peer review and their work to establish a fair and accountable peer review process for their journal. The Nature paper at http://www.eb.tuebingen.mpg.de/women/papers/nepotism.html plus the discussion at http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-08/ns_slee.html and the paper at http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326 might be of interest too.

5. It is disappointing that your department does not have an ethical policy. Perhaps you would consider developing one? Although I agree that there appears to be no procedural basis for further investigating my concerns about Carl Folke, I believe that a strong moral case exists. As we are aware, no scope exists for pursuing a moral case--a strong weakness in this interpretation of the scientific publication process.

6. Carl Folke uses his professional affiliation for his editorial work with the journal. Although his work for the journal would be done in his spare time, I believe that his behaviour reflects his institution and department.

Reaction

8 May 2004
A commentator who requested anonymity suggested that the authors' main mistake was to request a fee waiver upon submission of the paper. Without providing any supporting evidence, this commentator suggested that Ecology and Society is most interested in articles which bring with them the publishing fee, hence authors requesting a fee waiver are liable to receive worse reviews than those authors not requesting a fee waiver. The suggestion, again without any corroborating evidence, was that articles should be reviewed and then, if accepted, fee waivers should be requested. This sequence would make the difficulties in getting an article published in Ecology and Society with a fee waiver more transparent. The commentator accepted that their remarks would be posted on this website with the emphasis that no supporting evidence for their comments is available, hence the suggestions remain an unsubstantiated and potentially unverifiable personal opinion which is open for discussion.