Spaced Out :: 2006

Another occasional haunt is the Inn on the Park in St Albans. Really a cafe-cum-coffee bar, its situated on the north side of the park in Verulamium and is a rather pleasant place to go in winter. The food is home cooked, the coffee good (naturally!) and its just mellow. The same cannot be said for it in the summer when it gets very busy, particularly as the “splash park” is only 50 yards away; avoid at all costs if you want peace and quiet!!

As a result og my KAP experiences in China, I spent a while thinking about a new ultra-light camera rig. The current rig, copying Scott Haefner’s design, weighs in at over 500g with picavet cross. For conditions such as I experienced in Wuhan, its very difficult to get the rig/camera to fly, even with something like the Dopero125. I’m not prepared to reduce the quality of the camera (and the Coolpix 8400 is very good) so the next alternative was the rig.

First off, nearly all of our images are verticals; the only adjustment we need is rotation and that actually is only required through 90 degrees (to align the frame). So the new rig (right; very many thanks to Martin Abbott for the effort here) has a single-piece carbon plate picavet with a light-weight servo for rotation and the arm of the rig attached directly to the servo. Scott’s rig was very clever in that he had designed a simple gearbox to remove any stress on the servo (i.e. the rig hung off the gearbox, not the servo), but it added to the weight. The rig arm is curved to allow the camera to balance. In addition the camera can be hung at the top or bottom of the arm and, if you want, the camera can be moved to a fixed pan or tilt position. We also added a much lighter 6-channel receiver (not shown), with the whole lot coming in at a staggering 91g. We haven’t tested it yet so the concern is how the strong the servo is, however just to be on the safe side there is a safety strap so the camera doesn’t plummet to earth mid-flight! Watch this space for some more results.

I received a circular last week to a new journal from Beijing entitled Earth and Life. in today’s very crowded marketplace I either applaud those that can find a niche that isn’t being serviced or sit back and scratch my head in wonder. Anyway, Earth and Life is aiming to be a weekly publication covering everything in the geosciences and, I think, uniquely has a “self-review” system. That is the author goes off and gets someone to review their paper and this review is then emailed in. Quite an intriguing system in terms of reducing administration, but will it be taken seriously as it’s obviously open to abuse. Time will tell I guess.

The other aspect of Earth and Life that made me smile was that of the 69 pages in the first issue, 68 were authored by the editor. I think that must be some kind of record!

I have recently become the vice-chair for a new working group at the International Association of Geomorphologists on applied geomorphological mapping. Geomorphological mapping (the mapping of surface features based upon their morphology) saw a rise in interest in the late 1950’s, with an explosion in application in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Since that time work has been much more muted, but ongoing. The last decade however has seen a resurgence in landform mapping with the working group one expression of this interest.

The groups general objectives include:

• Develop and deepen the theoretical basis of applied geomorphological mapping;
• Develop standards, specific mapping procedures and legend systems for different applications and scales;
• Disseminate the importance and effectiveness of the use of geomorphological mapping as a basic tool for those who deal with the physical environment, in order to;
• Put a bridge between our and other scientific and professional communities.

Some of the intended outputs of the group include a professional handbook, digital atlas and at least one journal special issue. The target conference where primary reporting will take place is the IAGs 2009 International Geomorphology Conference - Melbourne.

The group is keen to involve individuals from across academia and industry, including those interested in geomorphology (!), engineering geology/mapping surficial materials and geomorphometry. Please subscribe to the AppGeMa mailing list if you are interested.

Some more musings on the role of editors in academic journals as a result of a paper I submitted a paper to the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology last year. In its original form, two reviewers highlighted both the strong and weak aspects of the paper. One suggested it would sit well if re-submitted (and actually noted that the topic was “excellent”. Warm glow!) as a short communication and on this basis the editor recommended a re-write. After six months (yes, I really should have done it sooner) I sat down and shortened the paper, re-submitting it. It then took another six months for the review to be completed before it was finally rejected. What surprised me was that the paper was reviewed from scratch and the original reviewers comments were abandoned, with one of the new reviewers stating it is “not likely to be of interest to the readers” (definitely not a warm glow on that count!).

So what is going on in all of this?? Well, I would normally re-submit a paper, addressing the points raised by the reviewers in an attached letter. An editor would be expected to check that these points had been correctly addressed and then either accept or reject on this basis. For whatever reason, the paper went out for a second review, which was not favourable. Clearly this placed the editor in a difficult position. Two sets of reviews, the first generally positive and the second generally negative. Which are “better”? In the end the paper was rejected but it clearly highlights both the role of the editor in the whole process and, more importantly, the careful selection of referees (something also highlighted by the IJRS article retractions). And it is referees that are both the strong and weak link in the whole review process. You need “experts” in a field of study, but can you find them? Are they expert across the scope of a whole paper? Are they biased? And will they do it?! Ultimately, these things need to be balanced.