Brief Communication: Future avenues for permafrost science from the perspective of early career researchers

Fritz, M.; Deshpande, B. N.; Bouchard, F.; Högström, E.; Malenfant-Lepage, J.; Morgenstern, A.; Nieuwendam, A.; Oliva, M.; Paquette, M.; Rudy, A. C. A.; Siewert, M. B.; Sjöberg, Y.; Weege, S.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-1715-2015

Articles | Volume 9, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-1715-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-1715-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 9, issue 4

Brief communication

|

26 Aug 2015

Brief communication |

| 26 Aug 2015

Brief Communication: Future avenues for permafrost science from the perspective of early career researchers

M. Fritz, B. N. Deshpande, F. Bouchard, E. Högström, J. Malenfant-Lepage, A. Morgenstern, A. Nieuwendam, M. Oliva, M. Paquette, A. C. A. Rudy, M. B. Siewert, Y. Sjöberg, and S. Weege

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Aug 2015)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 25 Feb 2015)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C240: 'Review of “Future avenues for permafrost science from the perspective of early career researchers” by Fritz et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Mar 2015
- AC C894: 'Reply to Anonymous Referee No.1', Michael Fritz, 28 May 2015
RC C322: 'tc-2015-39 Submitted on 14 Feb 2015', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Apr 2015
- AC C890: 'Reply to Anonymous Referee No.2', Michael Fritz, 28 May 2015

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Michael Fritz on behalf of the Authors (28 May 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Jun 2015) by Stephan Gruber

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (07 Jun 2015)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (17 Jun 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Minor Editorial revisions
Page 2, line 21 – Although IPCC is defined in reference list you still should spell it out the first time it is used in the text.

Page 4, line 15-16 – Some of the information in the sentence is covered below so it is suggested to revise to: “Warming and degradation of permafrost affects the landscapes of the polar, mountain and high-plateau regions.

Page 4 line 31-32 – Long-term monitoring helps with the identification and quantification of tipping points. Suggested revision: “Long-term monitoring of currently degrading sites will facilitate identification and quantification of tipping points and provide useful information on the development and recovery of the landscape.

Page 5 line 6 – You could consider using the term “thermal model” rather than temperature.

Page 5, line 17-18 – Suggested revision: “….communities will face in the near future. A main problem is….”

Page 5 line 28-29 – Suggested revision “…challenges both at local scales to better inform stakeholders…..as well as at regional and global scales to improve projections….” I would suggest you use the term regional and global scales rather than large scales. When we refer to large scale for map scale this would imply more local scale detailed modelling. Regional and global are more descriptive and probably better to use.

Page 7 line 6 – You could probably use any of the references cited in section 4.1 here as they are relevant to thermokarst and more recent than Czudek and Demek (Callaghan et al. 2011 probably works). This would allow you to remove one from your list.

Page 7 line11 – You could just say “…and mapping the susceptibility of ice-bearing permafrost landscapes to warming.” Susceptibility of the landscape would imply the impacts of melting ice on the landscape etc.

Page 8, line 10-11 Revision suggested: Test sites in problematic permafrost areas are one way…”

Page 8, line 12-13 Revision suggested: “Bridging the gap between meteorological and permafrost monitoring data would also support risk assessments and ….”

Page 8, line 31 Revision suggested “…to answer the questions raised was outlined by….”

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (01 Jul 2015) by Stephan Gruber

Dear authors

Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript it has received two favorable reviews; one of them with some suggestions for improvement. This is an interesting but also unusual manuscript in terms of what it reports. It is nearly ready for publication.

My most important point is making it more concise. Much of the text can be shortened significantly by removing unnecessary fill words, clauses, or repetition. I would like you to give the text one more round of careful editing to shorten it by about 30%. Similarly, please reduce to 20 references. Below are a few minor edits and suggestions.

Furthermore, it would be good to explain better what a “priority research question” (P3L7) or a “highlighted research question” is. In Figure 1, this is described as “found most compelling”. But this could mean a number of things such as scientifically most intriguing, or having the greatest societal relevance. In my view, it is important to explain this as the value of presenting the five selected questions hinges upon what they were selected for.

P2L7–L10: Remove “These topics … planning (ICARP III)”

P2L14: The logic does not work, please change: Northern Hemisphere as well as alpine areas and Plateaus. “As well as” implies that the latter are in addition to the former but they are not.

P2L18: Permafrost is not an essential climate variable, but two metrics are. Please be more specific.

P5L15 Delete “in the … landscapes”

P4L31 Delete “of currently degrading sites” and “and recovery”

P5L8 Delete “monitoring and”

P6L6 “permafrost conditions” insert blank space

P7L5 do you mean “disturbances SUCH as ice melt”

P7L12 “buried glacier ice would be”

P7L13 “… to create terrain sensitivity maps.”

P7L17 Biskarbon et al 2015 is not a suitable reference for GTN-P as a program.

P7L26 “The economic development in permafrost regions is facing….”

I look forward to reading your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,
Stephan Gruber

Hide

AR by Michael Fritz on behalf of the Authors (10 Jul 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (18 Jul 2015) by Stephan Gruber

Dear authors

Thank you for the shortened and revised version of your manuscript, and for your reply to the issues raised by the reviewers and by myself. From your reply, three topis arise that need to be addressed before publication. The first two relate to the quality of the argument you make.

(A) Concerning the definition of a “priority research question” or “highlighted research question”, you have referred to Sutherland et al. (2011). The questions you formulate as headings 4.1 to 4.5, however, appear to not fulfill your own criteria. Especially “Answerable through a realistic research design”, “Not answerable with ‘it all depends’, “Of a spatial and temporal scope that reasonably could be addressed by a research team”, and “Not formulated as a general topic area”. Please find a way to resolve this issue, e.g., by referring to them using a differing term (“topic”?). Furthermore, if the criteria put forward by Sutherland et al. (2011) were used in defining questions and the results do not conform to them, this sheds a strange light on the process. This should be resolved in great clarity.

(B) You write “Finally, a ‘priority research question’ or a ’highlighted research question‘ is a research question that was formulated and democratically selected/prioritized by the community.” This does not fully address my concern (“this could mean a number of things such as scientifically most intriguing, or having the greatest societal relevance. In my view, it is important to explain this as the value of presenting the five selected questions hinges upon what they were selected for.”). It would be good if you could include a short sentence (like the one above) explaining what a priority/most urgend/highlighted research question (topic?) is, and that in their selection, community members were using subjective criteria as to what values to use in prioritizing.

(C) While I see the appeal of inserting a reference here, I still disagree with your argument on keeping the reference to Biskarbon et al 2015. This manuscript describes a database; its conclusions relate to data handling, not to GTN-P or its primacy as a program. While it is a (maybe the only one) reference to GTN-P it does not provide backup for the statement you make. Please remove.

I look forward to one more round of revisions.

Kind regards,
Stephan Gruber

Hide

AR by Michael Fritz on behalf of the Authors (12 Aug 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (19 Aug 2015) by Stephan Gruber

AR by Michael Fritz on behalf of the Authors (19 Aug 2015)

Short summary

This is a contribution about the future of permafrost research to the 3rd International Conference on Arctic Research Planning 2015 (ICARP III). We summarize the top five research questions for the next decade of permafrost science from the perspective of early career researchers (ECRs). We highlight the pathways and structural preconditions to address these research priorities. This manuscript is an outcome of a community consultation conducted for and by ECRs on a global level.