cc: kfarnsworth@usgs.gov, lsmith@geog.ucla.edu, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk, kxu@vims.edu
date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:29:55 -0400
from: John Milliman <milliman@vims.edu>
subject: Re: ms 1141378
to: "Jesse Smith" <hjsmith@aaas.org>

           I must admit, Jesse, that I was disappointed but not surprised with your decision.
   Positive actions are always quicker - and easier - to make.  Reviewer #2 must have felt
   some time-pressure, because his review clearly shows that he did not read the paper
   carefully. Still, you were left with what you had to work with: and  clearly we missed the
   Milly et al. paper (2005)....

           Part of the problem - and one that I am sure is not new to you - is that in order
   to keep to size-restrictions by Science, we had to "gloss" over some parts that needed to
   be addressed in more detail

           Without your kind letter (below) - which  does not even look like a form letter - I
   would feel a lot more irked by the slowness of the review (76 days!).  In your shoes,
   however, I probably also would have rejected the paper.  But I also strongly feel that in
   the long run Science will have missed out on a good paper (which, I suspect you often do -
   for similar reasons to mine).

           Sincerely,

           John

     Content-Type: text/html
     Content-Description: HTML

     Dear John,



     You have by now received the official notice of our decision about your submission
     "Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors Affecting River Discharge To The Global Ocean,
     1951-2000", and I am sorry that it could not have been different.  I also want to
     apologize again for the length of time it took to complete the evaluation of the paper,
     but the combination of slow, late referees, my travel schedule, our general overload of
     manuscripts, and (though least important in terms of time) the difficulty which I
     sometimes have rejecting a paper that I appeals to me personally, all contributed to the
     slowing of the review process.  Unfortunately, every day we must reject publishable
     research because of stringent space requirements and the need to keep the journal to a
     manageable size: currently we are able to publish less than 6% of what is submitted
     here.


     I wish you the best of luck, and hope to see your manuscript in print soon.



     Sincerely,



     Jesse





     =======================
     Dr. Jesse Smith
     Senior Editor
     ----------------------------------------------
     Science
     1200 New York Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     USA
     ----------------------------------------------
     (202) 326-6556
     (202) 408-1256 (FAX)
     [1]hjsmith@aaas.org
     =======================
     >>> John Milliman <milliman@vims.edu> 4/30/2007 7:48:04 AM >>>

     Dear Jesse:

             Today marks the 75th day since I submitted our paper, "Climatic and
     Anthropogenic Factors Affecting River Discharge To The Global Ocean, 1951-2000", to
     Science, and while platinum anniversaries are generally to be lauded, in this case I
     have only increasing concern.

             If all the reviews, which as I understand from your last e-mail, were received
     before you left for EGU, had been positive or negative, I presume you would have made
     your decision by now; which would mean that the reviews are mixed.  If so, I suspect
     that some of the reviews may have questioned our delineation of or explanation of
     "excess" rivers.

             As we said in our submission letter, " We anticipate that some reviewers could
     question our lack of a more concrete explanation of excess rivers..."  Three of the 9
     outsider reviews that we obtained prior to submission (and since) submission,  raised
     this problem, but could offer any other explanation.  In the interim, we have come up
     with several other talking points that strengthen our explanation.

             Without seeing the reviews, of course, I can only surmise as to why you have
     delayed a decision on our paper.  But I hope - particularly given the very long time
     that this review has taken - that we could have an opportunity to discuss this further
     with you before you reach a final (which, as I understand, usually it is a "really
     final") decision.

             Sincerely,

             John



     Dear John,
     Thank you for your email, and I apologize for how long the review
     process is taking.  Two of the referees were very slow, and all the

     reviews came back only just before I left town for EGU.  I will be able
     to go over them when I get back to the office next week, and will be in
     touch as soon as I can after that.
     Best regards,
     Jesse
     =======================
     Dr. Jesse Smith
     Senior Editor
     ----------------------------------------------
     Science
     1200 New York Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     USA
     ----------------------------------------------
     (202) 326-6556
     (202) 408-1256 (FAX)
     hjsmith@aaas.org

     =======================

