Celebrating one year of Environmental Research Letters
The one-year anniversary is a critical milestone for a new journal. At that point there are enough articles published to begin to define the scope and readership, yet generally not enough of a track-record for the full community to regard the new entrant as a fixture and a source of 'must read' material. Environmental Research Letters (ERL) has set itself a particularly large and interesting challenge: to help connect the vast community of environmental researchers, practitioners, activists, and interested informed observers. ERL and its partner online resource base and community website, environmentalresearchweb, fills a major void: a single locus for rapid publication of peer-reviewed and highly interdisciplinary material spanning literally every aspect of environmental research and thought. The wide range of material that falls squarely into the purview of ERL—from restoration ecology to global change science and politics, to toxicology and environmental justice, to environmental and social impacts of energy conversion—illustrate just how diverse a 'community' we hope to serve. Thanks to an exceptional editorial staff and board, and a diverse range of fascinating contributed papers, ERL is off to a particularly fast start. ERL has both a small advisory board and a larger editorial board. The board serves several functions, beginning with the traditional one of taking the lead on reviews of papers in such a dizzying array of areas. This task alone is a challenge because of the commitment ERL has made to exceptionally rapid publication: a goal of 90 days from submission to online publication for accepted papers. This goal, which we have generally met, includes the publication of complementary (but not always complimentary) 500–1000 word commentaries on a number of papers. To accomplish this alone the editorial board, and the reviewers, have been heroic, and deserve a huge round of applause. IOP Publishing too, has been truly wonderful in making this happen. The rapid publication has proven to be important in both expected and unexpected ways. First, it means that emerging environmental analysis can reach a readership fast, and that discussions of key findings do not even have to wait for the next paper to appear (which, also, can be rapid given that ERL publishes online as papers complete the review process, without waiting for a full, 'bound' volume, to be ready). This rapid dialog is the result of another innovation that IOP Publishing was willing to support: environmentalresearchweb. Launched in February 2007, environmentalresearchweb is a portal for environmental news, discussions of both papers in ERL and events—climate meetings such as the recent Bali Summit or the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (to which I am very proud to have contributed as a lead author)—as well as meetings, and other goings on that impact environmental issues globally. By all objective measures this most direct role of ERL has gone exceedingly well. Publication has been rapid, and of high quality, and the readership has been fantastic. We have had over 50 000 downloads of full article PDFs. The most popular few articles have received over 5000 downloads apiece, showing clearly how far the reach can be for online publication of important new material. ERL articles have been profiled in Nature and other top journals. This level of international visibility that ERL's open-access model guarantees for authors and their work is one particular benefit of the journal and one that we have already seen translating into article citations. Virtually every author asks about ERL's Impact Factor and it's listing in the various scientific ranking services. It generally takes over a year, or a volume of publication, for a new journal to be reviewed and the articles listed by all citation services. The most important criteria that determine journal listing vary between different citation services, but what is clear is that only continued publication of research of the highest quality, impact and visibility can guarantee success. Task #1: Submit research of the highest quality to benefit from and further increase the already impressive visibility of ERL. A second benefit of the rapid publication of ERL articles is one that I am now hearing to be increasingly important in the selection of which journal rising scholars choose for submission of their works. At the late doctoral student, postdoctoral, and pre-tenure stages rapid review and publication can be particularly important. The management and production team at IOP Publishing have been heroic in making ERL a virtually unique venue for such rapid movement of not just a few papers, but all papers to online publication. Rapid publication of all papers is, of course, important, but emerging science on critical environmental issues and the advancement of innovative emerging scholars is an area where ERL is both committed, and has proven to be a major innovator in the field. The content of ERL, of course, is where the action has been during year one, and where it will continue to be. There have been exceptionally important papers on trans-Atlantic transport of Saharan dust, on the ecological impact of unconventional fossil fuels, and on the health impacts of traditional fuels, and one of particular note by James Hansen on 'Scientific reticence and sea level rise' (Hansen 2007). Individual articles, a number published with associated commentaries by leading scholars, practitioners, and industry leaders, are part of the mix at ERL, but so are special focus issues that bring together thought leaders on important current topics. So far we have seen exceptional leadership by our editorial board and guest editors on a range of topics, including: International Environmental Health and Justice Tropical Deforestation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Global Impacts of Particulate Matter Air Pollution Northern Hemisphere High Latitude Climate and Environmental Change Wind Energy Task #2: Take advantage of opportunities for special focus issues in ERL by proposing topics. Year two will see a number of new issues and challenges. A topic that ERL covers in detail is the science, technology, policy, economic, and social dimensions of the development of the next climate protocol, the evolution of the 'Bali Roadmap' into the 'Copenhagen Protocol' to replace the Kyoto Protocol. In this regard, the rapid publication and global open access of ERL affords a unique means for innovation and dialog. Access in developing nations, who must be included far more equitably and meaningfully in this new climate round, is something that ERL can and will provide (Cockerill and Knols 2008). Task #3: Facilitate an empowering and truly global dialog on development and climate that makes poorer communities full partners, not subjects, of the drive for global sustainability. Finally, a paper in volume 2, issue 2 of ERL marked a sad but telling occasion. A fascinating study, 'The regrets of procrastination in climate policy', by Klaus Keller, Alexander Robinson, David Bradford and Michael Oppenheimer used a coupled economic and climate model to evaluate the costs (regrets) of inaction on climate change (Keller et al 2007). The model they developed provides a running tally of the mounting costs, and risks, associated with continued greenhouse gas emissions. Tragically, David Bradford was killed at age 66 in a fire in 2005, and this paper, which the other authors dedicated to David, is one of his final publications. David was one of my mentors and colleagues at Princeton University where we worked together in the Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program—a haven for scientists within the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Ironically, this paper, and the events of 2007 came together in what I hope will be a lesson for those involved in energy and climate analysis and policy. David's distinguished career as an economist was highlighted by his work on tax law. His system, which he called the X tax, resembles what is known as the flat tax, insofar as it eliminates taxes on income earned through savings (Lehmann-Haupt 2005). But unlike the flat tax, which applies a single rate for all income brackets, Dr Bradford's X tax adds a graduated rate schedule, so that people with higher incomes pay at higher rates. This need to focus on the costs and the ability to pay for important policy innovations is vital to the coming climate discussions. A project my colleague Ann Kinzig and I started, in discussion with David Bradford, on the transition from our current global emissions portfolio (Kinzig and Kammen 1998) to a equitable, per capita, system (Baer et al 2000) highlighted the need to integrate the science and politics of a climate policy. Rapid publication and an ongoing dialog over climate solutions was the goal of that paper, and is what ERL today can provide as we enter the most vital phase of human interaction with the planet. References Baer P, Harte J, Herzog A, Holdren J, Hultman N, Kammen D M, Haya B, Norgaard R, and Raymond L 2000 Equal per capita emission rights: the key to a viable climate change policy Science 289 2287 Cockerill M J and Knols B G J 2008 Open access to research for the developing world Issues Sci. Technol. (Winter 2008) Hansen J E 2007 Scientific reticence and sea level rise Environ. Res. Lett. 2 024002 Keller K, Robinson A, Bradford D F and Oppenheimer M 2007 The regrets of procrastination in climate policy Environ. Res. Lett. 2 024004 Kinzig A P and Kammen D M 1998 National trajectories of carbon emissions: analysis of proposals to foster the transition to low-carbon economies Glob. Environ. Change 8 183–208 Lehmann-Haupt C 2005 David Bradford, 66, economist who advocated tax reform, dies New York Times (24 February)