1 / 19

Guidance for Authors

Guidance for Authors. Creating the Assessment team. Types of input from authors Selection of authors for these inputs Sequence of inputs by authors Guidance to authors. Team of Volunteers: types of input.

amos-dunn
Download Presentation

Guidance for Authors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Guidance for Authors

  2. Creating the Assessment team • Types of input from authors • Selection of authors for these inputs • Sequence of inputs by authors • Guidance to authors

  3. Team of Volunteers: types of input • The Group of Experts of the Regular Process (GOERP)has been set up as “an integral part of the Regular Process” • The Pool of Experts is being created to “support the work of” GOERP • Peer Reviewers may either be members of the pool of experts who have not worked on the chapter in question, or may be people not previously involved

  4. Proposed role of GOERP To organize necessary inputs and develop the first integrated assessment. GOERP will therefore: • Allocate the lead on each chapter to one of its members • Propose, for approval by Bureau/AHWGW the assignment of tasks to members of the pool of experts • Organize production of working papers and review results • Organize production of draft chapters • Review results and produce draft First Integrated Assessment Report • Propose, for approval by the Bureau/AHWGW, arrangements for peer-review • Agree final text of First Integrated Assessment Report and present to AHWGW

  5. Appointment of other contributors 1. Criteria for nomination of members of the pool of experts have been recommended to the UN General Assembly for approval 2. Nomination of experts by States, through the UN General Assembly regional groups 3. Assignment of tasks by GOERP, subject to the approval of the Bureau/AHWGW

  6. Working Papers • Purpose: to provide considered statements on issues identified in the Assessment Outline • some existing assessments may serve • some may synthesize at global level existing assessments and regional working papers • Prepared by: Lead Drafter(s) • teams drawn from the GOERP and the pool of experts, under the leadership/responsibility of a member of GOERP • Reviewed by: panels of Consultors drawn from the pool of experts • Revised by: Lead Drafter(s) in the light of comments • GOERP reviews and acts to fill gaps or resolve contradictions

  7. Draft Chapters Process similar to that for Working Papers: • Purpose: to provide concise, clear and coherent components for the First Integrated Assessment Report • Prepared by: Lead Drafter(s) • Reviewed by: panels of Consultors drawn from the pool of experts • Revised by: Lead Drafter(s) in the light of comments • GOERP reviews and acts to fill gaps or resolve contradictions

  8. From Drafts to Report • GOERP consolidates draft chapters into the draft First Integrated Assessment Report • Peer Review • by experts from States and intergovernmental organizations • peer reviewers, to be proposed by the GOERP and approved by Bureau/AHWGW • GOERP agrees the final text of the First Global Integrated Marine Assessment, in the light of peer-review comments

  9. Guidance The Guidance for Authors will cover: • Status of authors • Access to information used • DPSIR • Level of detail (as between the global and regional levels) • Characterizing and communicating uncertainty • Treatment of risk • Handling divergent views • Ethics in authoring and evaluating Other issues yet to be covered: • Integration • Style Sheet

  10. Status of authors • Those involved will act in their personal capacity as independent experts • They are not as representatives of a Government or any other authority or organization. • They should neither seek nor accept instructions regarding their work for the Regular Process • They are free to consult widely with other experts and with government officials, in order to ensure that their contributions are credible, legitimate and relevant.

  11. DPSIR • Drivers – the underlying forces that drive change in the environment. • Pressures – the channels through which these forces affect the environment; • States – the resulting states of the environment; • Impacts – the resulting impacts of these pressures and states on biological diversity and human well-being. • Responses – the ways that society has responded and the results of those responses – But we must NOT get into discussions of policy.

  12. Information • Base as much as possible on publicly available information • Other information can be used, but (as far as practicable) steps are needed to give access to it • Drafts may rely on literature that has not been peer-reviewed • Where non-peer-reviewed sources are used, they must be assessed and reviewed • The objectives are to ensure that all information used by the Regular Process • receives critical evaluation • its use is open and transparent • all references used in the reports are, as far as possible, easily accessible.

  13. Uncertainty • Several different ways to express uncertainty: • Likelihood (e.g., “extremely likely”) • Confidence (e.g., “high confidence”) • Level-of-understanding (described in terms of the amount of evidence available and the degree of agreement among experts); • Standard terms to qualify the level of confidence and risk. • GOERP will need to agree a glossary of such standard terms.

  14. Treatment of Risk • “Risk” is the product of the likelihood of an event and the seriousness of the event if it occurs • Both aspects should be made clear • How this will be done is case-specific • Assessments will have to accommodate a wide range in data quality and quantity, and in knowledge of relationships and impacts. • No single best approach to risk quantification and communication.

  15. Divergent views • What alternative viewpoints warrant mention is a matter of professional judgment. • Lead drafters influence over which viewpoints will be discussed in the process. • To ensure a full range of views, authors with diverse viewpoints need to be involved • Combat “confirmation bias” -the tendency of authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other views. • Document the range of scientific viewpoints considered • Give due consideration to properly documented alternative views

  16. Ethics in authoring and evaluating • Cite published work of others correctly • Representthe conclusions of cited work accurately • Disclose any conflict of interest.

  17. Integration • We are all learning on how to integrate assessments. • “Watch this space!”

  18. Style Sheet • Make sure that the text reads smoothly • Minimise the amount of copy-editing • Keep “comma-hunting” to a minimum

  19. Managing a myriad • The pool of experts is likely to have 1,000 – 1,500 members • The “Guidance for Authors” is the tool to keep this army moving in the same direction • Please let us have your comment

More Related