As a follow-up to my previous post, see also here and here, I'd like to share some additional reflections on the experience of doing hydrology in academia. I've attempted to classify different types of researchers, and below, you'll find the third part of this classification.
There are those who apply cutting-edge knowledge to case studies, which in turn reveal new and unusual dynamics. These cases should not be relegated, as often happens, to tedious and routine treatments where tools are taken for granted and hydrological models as commodities. Instead, they should be viewed as integral to the process of acquiring knowledge about the cases themselves and evaluating the effectiveness of the tools used to describe them. In these times, the ability to apply hydrological theories systematically to wide areas open the gates to unprecedented knowledge of Earth system and its cycles well beyond episodic application of forecasting just to a hydrological event or two but trying to discern the whole hydrological behavior during droughts and floods and intermediate periods (the latter the more frequent indeed).
Examples of current applications in the standard include the use of legacy code, calibration procedures, and validation criteria. Significant academic efforts have gone into developing these codes and defining validation standards, primarily to steer clear of deep philosophical debates and unanswerable concerns from reviewers. However, as mentioned previously, building these tools is no simple task, and the process is lengthy and complex, one that you may not wish to pursue.
Can you publish any application anywhere? Certainly not. Or, if you do manage to publish it, it may simply become a drop in the ocean, unnoticed. As with any endeavor, the application must offer something novel.
This novelty lies in your ability to address fundamental questions such as: Is catchment hydrology a continuum of processes that cannot be disentangled? Can we instead identify functional components within catchments that explain spatial and temporal behaviors? Put differently, what are the dominant elements of catchment hydrology? Does the catchment exhibit specific features? What are the seasonal changes in the organization of hydrological flows? What are the effects of land use and land cover? What are the primary time scales of catchment responses (e.g., response time)? Are catchment responses variable across space and time? Where do models fail to provide reasonable answers (potentially indicating a new scientific pathway)?
The strength of a potential paper lies in the authors’ ability to thoroughly dissect some of these questions or explore other relevant aspects that I may not have considered.
Examples of noteworthy applications include those that generate new datasets made publicly available for future research. [[Sharing data and ensuring reproducible workflows are essential. No reproducibility? No publication. We can no longer accept impressive simulations and superior results that can't be replicated. That isn't science; it's, at best, storytelling—or as some might call it, vaporware.]] Another compelling example is large-scale applications on extensive river systems [[especially when these studies capture the hydrology of vast regions of the Earth, influencing numerous ecosystems and human communities]]. Papers that explore future scenarios with increasing reliability [[not just retrospective hindcasts, but predictive studies that anticipate future conditions and are subsequently validated]] are particularly valuable. Additionally, papers that integrate hydrology with ecosystem studies or catchment biogeochemistry stand out. As always, novelty is key.
Many argue that validating a model solely on discharge outputs is inadequate. If you agree with this perspective, it necessitates a commitment to a more rigorous approach.
Recently, I have strongly advocated in all our papers for the inclusion of a comprehensive water budget alongside the simulation of desired discharge levels. While this requires considerable effort, it significantly enhances the discussion around the consistency of the results.
If I were to fully indulge my preferences, I would no longer approve manuscripts that only replicate discharge results. Not anymore! If you share this view, you might consider updating your legacy codes to simulate and discuss the entire water budget, and possibly the energy budget. This ties into the research discussed in previous posts, highlighting the interconnected nature of our work.
No comments:
Post a Comment