Publications

Michael E. Mann is an American climatologist, author of more than 80 peer-reviewed journal publications, most notably a number of articles on paleoclimate and as one of the originators of a graph of temperature trends dubbed the “hockey stick graph” for the shape of the graph. In 2009 he was promoted to professor at Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute and since 2005 has been Director of the university’s interdepartmental Earth System Science Center. He was a Lead Author on the Observed Climate Variability and Change chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report (2001). He has been organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science and has served as a committee member or advisor for other National Academy of Sciences panels. He served as editor for the Journal of Climate and has been a member of numerous international and U.S. scientific advisory panels and steering groups.

Mann has been the recipient of several fellowships and prizes, including selection as one of the 50 leading visionaries in Science and Technology by Scientific American, the outstanding scientific publication award of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and recognition by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) for notable citation of his refereed scientific research. Mann is one of several climate scientists who contribute to the RealClimate blog.

He is best known for his paleoclimate ‘hockey stick’ reconstructions of climatic fluctuations over the past several millennia, based on evidence from tree rings, ice cores, corals and other physical proxies. Such reconstructions have been the subject of some controversy; see temperature record of the past 1000 years for an overview. Mann’s recent work has been on modelling El Niño, and he has said that “we are already committed to 50 to 100 years of global warming and several centuries of sea level rise” and that reduction in fossil fuel emissions is required to slow the process down to a level that can be coped with.

In November 2009, Mann’s correspondence with fellow climate researchers was among that released in the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. In an interview broadcast by the BBC, Mann commented that the “emails are genuine and have been misrepresented, cherry-picked, mined for single words and phrases that can be completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said…” He wrote in The Washington Post that the hacked e-mails “do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.”

To read more about Dr. Michael Mann’s research, you can start here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es053378b

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:92381.wais

Where does the scientific data confirming Climate Change and Global Warming come from?

http://tinyurl.com/UrbanHeat

http://tinyurl.com/NasaSurfTemp

http://tinyurl.com/SurfaceStations

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange

http://tinyurl.com/InstrumentTempWiki

http://tinyurl.com/Paleoclimate-Summary

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

http://tinyurl.com/GlobalWarming-EvidenceSummary

http://web.mac.com/dannysatterfield/climatechange/Resources.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=249

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=248

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=271

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=270

To read more articles, watch more videos, check interactive graphics and visualizations, you can go here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming-world.html

You can watch an excellent series debunking Climate Change denialists here:

http://tinyurl.com/Science-ClimateChange

Climate Crock of the Week with Peter Sinclair produced here (go subscribe):

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

To listen to the entire interview, you can find it here:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

Duration : 0:9:45

(more…)

I know there’s a word for it, and I think it’s a long word too, but I can’t think of it – a more fitting and proper term for something that is being judged (usually a publication/ you know, when narrowing entries?) when referring to a "judged" Journal/Publication/Contest

rated, graded, critiqued

A panel of experts takes you through the process of submitting, editing, reviewing and publishing an article in a scholarly journal.

Duration : 0:8:54

(more…)

Professor Bob Franklin reviews the February edition of Journalism Practice as it enters its fourth year of publication, the journal opens with an article by Monica Löfgren Nilsson.

Duration : 0:3:27

(more…)

Professor Bob Franklin reviews the February edition of Journalism Practice as it enters its fourth year of publication, the journal opens with an article by Monica Löfgren Nilsson.

Duration : 0:3:27

(more…)

Professor Bob Franklin reviews the February edition of Journalism Studies as it enters its second decade of publication, with eight articles the issue leads with an article by Michael Karlsson & Jesper Strömbäck.

Duration : 0:3:52

(more…)

I know there’s a word for it, and I think it’s a long word too, but I can’t think of it – a more fitting and proper term for something that is being judged (usually a publication/ you know, when narrowing entries?) when referring to a "judged" Journal/Publication/Contest

It is hard to tell exactly what you are looking for. However, see if any of these speak to it:
selection committee
Winners will be selected by a panel of judges.
considered
designated
ranked

How do you know who gets placed where for authorship on research? I realize that the person who is the brainchild of the project gets first authorship.

Let me explain. This summer I helped out with a research project. I was hired to do a certain amount of hours of field work per week. When the project ended, I was asked to write the a portion of the methods section. I assumed that I would be the last person listed on the paper. I knew that I wouldn’t get the place of first author since I didn’t create the project. So, for about a month I have been helping with various aspects of the paper in addition to writing a portion of the methods. Then a few days ago, the lead author told me that an individual had talked her about helping with the paper. She didn’t know that the individual wanted to help since he hadn’t expressed any interest in helping. She explained to him that she was going to put me as the second author. He got really upset with her and told her that he had put in more hours and done more work on the project. She went on to tell him that part of what he was doing was for his dissertation, not this particular project. He apparently threw a fit because he thought that they (the 1st author and himself) had an understanding (whatever that was supposed to be). The lead author did tell him that I had put in A LOT of work on this paper and project. I put in almost 200 hrs. of field work, many hours of writing, and other contributions to this paper. He has put in, maybe, 30 hours of field work and no more than 5 hours writing and making contributions to the paper. He already has DVM and is working toward a PhD (wildlife biology). I have my BA in Ecology and working toward my MS (wildlife Biology). Should he be given the spot as the second authorship even though he hasn’t done as much as me?

Whose brainchild it was has little to do with the person getting senior authorship. The person who does the bulk of the work in preparing the paper is senior author, usually. Note: this doesn’t mean the person who handled the research work, went out in the field, got muddy, did the scut work, etc. They may not even be given authorship at all, if they did none of the writing. The person who could take senior authorship can take coauthorship, in which case, the names go in alphabetical order. I became first author of a paper this way but nobody who knows us would dream that I did much of the writing.

It is up to the senior author, who gets mentioned as an author and in what order. Generally, junior authors get mentioned in alphabetical order. If they are not, it is assumed that they are listed in order of their contributions.

Sometimes people who did none of the writing are given junior authorship. Often this means that they are graduate students of the senior author, have worked on the project, and would benefit from having a paper to list on their resumes. There is some justification for this, I suppose. What I can’t tolerate is the practice, mostly in medical papers, of listing everyone who could remotely be connected to the project. Most egregious is the demand of the person who controls the funding to be listed as senior author on all papers emanating from the lab.

In short, it’s up to the senior author. Stay out of it, especially if the names happen to fall in alphabetical order. Nobody reading the paper cares about the difference between second and third author.

What are benefits or reasons one should consider publishing their peer reviewed work? Do you feel that it helps in finding jobs, or just broadens your perspective on the topics you research? Do you research topics that have been researched very little, or just get an idea and go with it? Any thoughts on the values of submitting an article for publication?

Depends on where your career will take you. Having both academic and professional press publications can catch the eye of an HR department, especially when the recruiters are not technical. They can also be a turn off to some companies, who see a distinction between academics and people who actually get things done.

If you ever want to work for a University (employee or grad student), then they are a key requirement.

I’ve been tempted to write on a topic which is totally outside my resume. I think if I do, I won’t be listing it.

Peer review journals are loosing it, in many areas. In astrophysics, you get full peer credit for posting on lightly moderated lists, without the time delay or expense of the print journals. (Physics Review charges the author per page.)
Getting your name out, being found on Google searches, can be helpful.

Which feature has the largest impact on the accuracy of a journal entry?
* length
* date of publication
* bias
* style

i would say the date because if ur sources are outdated, theyre not accurate.
Well it depends, are you writing it or citing it as a source?