Enhancing the review process in global environmental assessments: The case of the IPCC
Enhancing the review process in global environmental assessments: The case of the IPCC
复制标题
加强全球环境评估的审查过程：IPCC 的案例
DOI：
10.1016/j.envsci.2022.10.012
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Swart
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Palutikof;S. Boulter;Christopher B. Field;K. Mach;M. Manning;M. Mastrandrea;L. Meyer;J. Minx;J. Pereira;G. Plattner;S. K. Ribeiro;Y. Sokona;F. Stadler;R. Swart
外部审查是全球环境评估的一个基本组成部分，确保其进程是全面、客观、公开和透明的，并被视为如此。在这里，我们重点审查政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）的评估报告。审查过程很少受到审查，尽管审查意见和作者的回应是公开的。在此，我们分析第四次和第五次评估的审查文件，主要侧重于第二工作组。我们提出三个问题：审查是否具有代表性？是否全面？很有见地吗？总的来说，我们认为审查进程符合目的，尽管存在一些悬而未决的问题。首先，绝大多数审评员来自发达国家，尽管有证据表明，在第四次和第五次评估之间，发展中国家审评员的参与有所增加。第二，章节的前几节比后几节更密集地复习。即使执行摘要从分析中删除，情况也是如此。因此，一些关于专门专题的章节可能会逃避深入审查。第三，收到的审查意见对各章的科学发展作出了有效和宝贵的贡献。我们建议如何解决悬而未决的问题，包括通过提高审稿人的认可度，扩大编审的作用，从过程的早期就遵守规定的页面长度，审稿人培训，以及报告的一致性，以便进行系统评价。做出这些改变将使审查工作更加透明、一致和具有代表性，从而有效地提高未来全球环境评估的可信度和合法性，并最终提高其认可度和贡献。
External review is a fundamental component of Global Environmental Assessments, ensuring their processes are comprehensive, objective, open and transparent, and are perceived as such. Here, we focus on review of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports. The review process has received little scrutiny, although review comments and author responses are public. Here we analyse review documents from the Fourth and Fifth Assessments, focusing primarily on Working Group II. We address three questions: Is the review representative? Is it comprehensive? Is it insightful? Overall we found the review process to be fit for purpose, although there are outstanding issues. First, the overwhelming majority of reviewers are from developed countries, although evidence suggests participation by developing country reviewers increased between the Fourth and Fifth Assessments. Second, earlier sections of chapters are more densely reviewed than later ones. This is true even when executive summaries are removed from analysis. In consequence, some sections on specialised topics may escape in-depth review. Thirdly, those review comments which are received make a valid and valuable contribution to the scientific development of chapters. We suggest how outstanding issues could be addressed, including through enhanced reviewer recognition, a wider role for review editors, adherence to mandated page lengths from early in the process, reviewer training, and consistency in reporting to allow systematic evaluation. Making such changes will result in more transparent, consistent and representative processes delivering reviews which effectively contribute to the credibility and legitimacy of future Global Environmental Assessments and, ultimately, their recognition and contribution.