Hooray, at least one editor and one or more experts in the field have given their valuable time and attention to read and comment on your hard work, and you have a long-awaited response from the journal! 

Here are some tips to help you navigate this process: 

1. First, take a deep breath! Remember the goal of peer review is to improve the final manuscript (and research shows that papers that have been through several rounds of peer review get cited more than those that were more immediately accepted!). Keep your reader in mind and work to make the changes that will make the text more accurate, clear and valuable for them. As a baseline, assume that editors and reviewers also share this goal and try to take their comments in that spirit. 
2. Read through the reviews carefully, paying special attention to the Editor's instructions - this should guide your prioritization for revision. Look for common themes across reviewers- areas of agreement are important to clarify in the manuscript. Consider the type of comment- does it relate to the overall argument/soundness of the work in supporting claims with evidence, is it more about the structure of the writing, or a small detail to clarify in wording? Getting the big picture helps you get an idea about where to focus your revisions. 
3. As first author, you have primary responsibility for leading revisions to address reviewer's comments, and for keeping all of your coauthors informed- including asking for their help with revisions where needed, and getting input and consent from all coauthors on your suggested response to reviews and the revised manuscript before resubmitting it to the journal. It is important to share the reviews received with your coauthors right away and keep them informed of due dates and progress. You should suggest a timeline for making the revisions needed, that will give all coauthors time to read and respond to your suggested revisions. Be sure to ask for what you need in terms of support- i.e., do you want a brainstorming Skype session to help formulate your overall response strategy? Are you unclear what certain reviewers' comments mean, or what they are looking for? Are there parts of reanalysis or writing that you need coauthors to lead?   
4. Save a new draft of the manuscript where you'll work in Track Changes to share with your coauthors. Consider annotating this with some of the key, overarching comments from reviewers (i.e., "Insert Comment" in Word at the relevant section where the reviewer's comment applies- see example above left from a recently accepted paper led by Klara Winkler). This can help the manuscript read more coherently and coauthors will understand your motivation for the changes you've made, and help assess if these changes have fully addressed the reviewer's concern.
5. Make a table with the Editor's and Reviewer's responses in the left column, labeling the source of each comment (e.g., first all comments from the Editor, then from Reviewer 1, etc.). Give each main idea its own row. Be sure to include any in-text comments that were received here as well. In the right column, you will write your response to address this comment (see example above right from Winkler et al., accepted). The final version will answer the reviewer's question (e.g., "Yes you're right and we did this on line X," quoting the relevant manuscript text here if needed). For a first draft, this column can contain notes to your coauthors, e.g., "I don't understand what the reviewer means here" or "Kim, can you please answer this one?", or some initial bullet points about your planned response ("Rewrite this para to make link with research question 2 explicit").  

I hope that's helpful to get started!

For more in depth tips, I suggest the excellent article "How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication." Peer review would go so much more quickly and smoothly if everyone followed Hywel Williams' three Golden Rules: Answer completely, answer politely, answer with evidence. See also his phrasings for suggested responses to reviewers, and tips for how to deal with common scenarios like reviewers who disagree, or who are rude. 

Another good source is "10 simple rules for writing a response to reviewers," by William Stafford Noble in PLOS. 

Happy revising!  

Last October, I gave a Sunday morning talk to a group of early-career researchers attending the Earth Systems Governance conference. It was a day-long program on "Developing a career in earth system governance: opening up science." I enjoyed the chance to gather my thoughts and pass along some good advice I've been given (and some earned through experience!).

Thanks very much to Ina Möller, who made a podcast from our conversation. You can have a listen here.

Here's a condensed list and links to resources I've found helpful. Hope they're useful to others! 

Here’s a short summary I co-wrote with Céline Fernandez compiling the highlights of our November meeting for the LuPOD professional development program. ​

Best practices for films for educational purposes:

• Max length: 5 min
• Availability: no more than 2 clicks to access
• Sound quality is important to the viewer
• Think about the voice melody of the speakers (no monotonous tone)
• Lifetime: since the film will most probably remain on the web for a long time, use a layout that is likely to age well   

 
Issue regarding available learning material online: often no quality control. Therefore, make sure to review material before assigning, point out to students to be critical when using information online, and consider making your own material.
 
 
Teaching portfolios

• Why you need one: it helps you document and reflect on your teaching, and may be required for application to positions (e.g., lecturer or docent) or for merits like the Pedagogical Academy/Excellent Teaching Practitioner.
• Get a model: Applications for positions (such as Docent) at Lund University are public documents and should be available on request. These are valuable to study when working on your own application. Also ask colleagues to share their successful applications for inspiration.
• Pedagogical philosophy: Get beyond buzzwords from LATHE courses and show how you expressed pedagogical ideas in practice.
• Pedagogical reflection: Give both good and bad examples from your teaching practice to demonstrate your own reflection and development.

• Scholarship of teaching and learning: taking an investigative approach to teaching and learning, applying an iterative cycle of reflection and improvement.

 
References and further reading:

• Application for Excellent Teaching Practitioner at Lund University, including instructions for the teaching portfolio required, are listed by faculty. Here are links to the Social Science Faculty and LTH, which were easy to find in English on the Lund website. :) 

Science should be open. Duh. 

Easier said than done.

There are many reasons why this fails.

​Personally, I think mostly it's well-intentioned, busy people who don't follow best practices from the beginning, then don't want to spend the time cleaning up their Rube Goldberg-esque Excel sheets later.

I've definitely been there. But I'm trying to get better, and trying to help those in my lab establish good habits. 

For my last lab meeting, we discussed best practices in open data, based on this paper by my friend and colleague Lizzie Wolkovich. 

Everyone in my lab is now working on curating our own data for a current project, including making a diagram of our workflow, and organizing our data cleanly, with good meta-data. 

This is a work in progress, but here are a few resources I've found helpful: 

1. Lizzie's paper, "Advances in global change research require open science by individual researchers," gives a great motivation for why open data matters, what stands in its way, and how to design research to be open. 

2. Ten simple tips for how to design a clean spreadsheet, by @robinhouston and @SeanClarke (hint: commas, asterisks, and color-coding don't belong). 

3. Thirteen more elaborate but still simple and important tips for effective data management (what you wish you knew at the beginning of your research career, instead of learning the hard way, like always using full, consistent format for dates). 

4.  Lizzie's "Ze Template" for organizing project meta-data (what the study is about, what files it involves, where they're located), under Creative Commons license. Yay open science, and yay Lizzie! 


We're going to keep talking about this in my lab, including issues with open data in qualitative research (confidentiality, subjectivity of observations)- if you have any references on this, please let me know! 

This week was the first teaching retreat for teachers in USV, Lund University's division for faculty-free centers ranging from the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies to my own department of LUCSUS, the centre for sustainability studies. About 25 teachers stayed at a former church in the town of Höör, 25 minutes by train from Lund. 

Over two days, we learned new tools and approaches for teaching, and had time to share our ideas and learn from each other. Some of the main tools I learned about: 

1. Live voting using smartphones in class to check student understanding
   
   The Swedish company Mentimeter has designed a simple, free interface where teachers can set up questions (multiple choice or open answer), and students vote online or with their smartphones. You can see the anonymous votes accumulate in real time. Useful to check student understanding after discussion, keep engagement high, correct misconceptions. 
   ​
2. The "flipped" classroom 
   
   "Flipped" classrooms use student time at home to read, watch video lectures, and do quizzes; and then use class time for active tasks like discussion and group activities (rather than passive absorption of lecture material). This model changes the role of the teacher from "sage on the stage" to "guide on the side".  We were encouraged to try this model and shown some data on how effective it can be for student learning. 
   
   
3. Filming lectures for online & MOOCs 
   
   Online lectures are increasingly popular for MOOCs (massive online open courses), or as part of a traditional or flipped classroom. We were advised that a good video lecture for student learning is short (5-9 minutes), where the teacher addresses students directly (not students in another classroom), shows passion, and underlines important ideas. The video/audio quality isn't critical for student learning (as long as you can be clearly seen and heard), so don't worry about fancy technology- the webcam on your computer is good enough! 
   
   Lund University has a new tool, LU Play, for recording screencasts of lectures. We played around with it a bit- quite easy to use to film slides and your presentation, and you can include interactive quizzes. One disadvantage though is that it's only available internally to LU students logged in with a Stil-account, and not easy to upload directly to YouTube or other public platforms (you have to download to your own computer first), which made me wonder about archiving and long-term access. 
   
   I found a good video from UBC professor Rosie Redfield on why and how she records her lectures herself, with encouraging tips and helpful explanation of the technology she uses. Also it seems that the free open-source Open Broadcaster Software is a good option for recording screencasts (though a little less intuitive than LU Play at first). 
   
   
4. Syllabus design 
   We discussed the purpose and role of a course syllabus with Katarina Mårtensson Lund University Division for Higher Education Development (AHU). She pointed out all the different roles that a syllabus can play, including: forcing the teacher to focus and prioritize, making the learning outcomes visible, as a communication tool between teachers and students, between teachers to focus on overall program coherency, and to help new teachers who inherit a course, or have to take over on short notice. 
   
   We reviewed a syllabus from a colleague from another department and gave feedback on questions we would have as a student. This made me realize the importance of being familiar with similar courses to highlight what distinguishes my course (so I should do a syllabus review when designing a course, similar to a literature review for writing an academic paper).

The current text calls for "GHG neutrality in second half of the century," which leaves the door open to the necessary zero carbon emissions, but does not ensure it.
 
Several panelists raised concerns about the current “greenhouse gas neutrality” language. Prof. Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester said the language of neutrality masks the need for “negative emissions,” removal of carbon from the atmosphere using largely unproven means.
 
Schellnhuber echoed the concern that negative emissions were a “gamble,” further stating that every country has to go for complete decarbonization by 2050 to meet the 1.5 degree target.
 
Rockström agreed, stating that "decarbonization" was a better long-term qualitative goal than greenhouse gas neutrality. He further warned the audience that staying under 2 degrees is also about keeping carbon in rainforests and other ecosystems, a service that becomes riskier at higher temperatures due to feedbacks between the land and atmosphere.
 
For any chance of 1.5°, Rockstrom continued that the richest nations (such as the EU, US, Australia, and other OECD countries) need to lead the charge to zero fossil fuel use at 2030, in order to leave some space in the carbon budget for developing countries to transition slightly more slowly to decarbonization. He noted that this is a very ambitious target, which the current climate pledges, or intended nationally determined contributions, do not yet meet.
 
Kevin Anderson stressed the critical nature of aligning national pledges with the agreed target over time through a robust, regular review process going forward, which Rockstrom suggested could occur every 2-3 years, as part of regular Conference of the Party meetings.
 
Joeri Rogelj of IIASA noted that scenarios consistent with the 1.5 target are expected to achieve global peak emissions by 2020. Noting this date leaves no time to waste, Rogelj said, “We must start rapid emission reductions, and not count on carbon capture and storage later.”
 
As everyone at Le Bourget anxiously awaits the next round of text, Prof. Schellnhuber cited his long experience with the climate negotiations process, saying that the second to last text that we now have available was “always stronger” than the final text, as parties had to compromise to reach agreement. He called the current text “extremely progressive, believe it or not,” though he warned that even the current softer goal of “greenhouse gas neutrality after mid-century” could disappear in the final wranglings over the next few hours.
 
Looking ahead, journalist Mark Hertsgaard asked “What has to happen in the next 18 months, not just the next 18 hours, from all governments to be realistic about 1.5?”
 
Kevin Anderson cited a role for individuals, noting a new report showing that 50% of global CO2 emissions come from just 10% of the population. He said this means that energy demand (reducing high-CO2 activities like flying) needs to be reduced by high emitters, including “most of us in this room.”
 
Schellnhuber said that the Paris Agreement will send a message to civil society- and it will be the work of business, cities, investors, and all of us to finish the job. He concluded that COP21 has to make the 1.5 to 2 degree target consistent with long-term actions, and “if they do their job, we'll be fine." 

The new text of the Draft Paris Agreement dropped at 21h on Thursday at the UN climate summit. From the word cloud above, you can see that it's an agreement that shall develop into a party. And where nations should take action to meet, adapt, build, support, and implement! 

There was a frantic rush for printers and the document center as delegates, observers and press scurried to take in the new document, which COP President Laurent Fabius said was the second to last text, aiming to finalize tomorrow into the "universal, legally binding, ambitious, fair, lasting agreement that the world's waiting for. I think we'll make it."

Analysis by my friends at parisagreement.org (below) shows that we're down to just 48 brackets, or points of contention. The Parties are now hashing these out in a closed-door "solutions indaba", to the disappointment of keen observers. 

While we wait to see what will emerge in the morning, you can see a helpful ongoing analysis of the text evolution (what's in, what's out) at the Deconstructing Paris blog, and catch up on who's said what at the negotiations (that were open to observers) with accuracy, insight, and funny GIFs at the Google doc run by COP21 heroes @LaingHamish and @ryanmearns. For the full GIF-based reaction to COP21, try Leehi's ParIsThisIt?  

​Our new study shows trouble ahead for feeding the world under a warmer climate, with yields for staple grains declining more sharply with greater warming if high emissions of greenhouse gases continue.

​If emissions are reduced to the level represented by the current climate pledges at the start of the Paris summit (where carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere stabilize around 550ppm), yields of corn in Iowa are projected to be similar to today (or even experience a slight increase of 6%). However, continued high emissions leading to greater warming would be expected to produce a 21% decline in yields.
 
The news is worse for wheat yields in southeast Australia. This region already struggles with drought in a crop system that relies on rainfall, and climate models consistently project the area will get warmer and drier in the future. This combination spells potential yield declines of 50% under lower warming, and 70% under greater warming: extremely challenging conditions for continued wheat production in the region.

​The study, published in the Journal of Climate, found that yields of staple cereal were very sensitive to changes in climate. In particular, we found that, on average, each increase of 1°C (1.8°F) in temperature resulted in a yield decrease of 10% for corn in Iowa, and 15% for wheat in Southeastern Australia. This means that limiting warming through reduced heat-trapping pollutants is important to maintain the productivity of today’s breadbaskets.
 
Both crops were also highly influenced by rainfall. Each decrease in precipitation of 10mm (0.39 inches) resulted in a yield decrease of 12% for Iowan corn and 9% for Australian wheat. Australia is predicted to experience substantially drier conditions in the future, which contributes to the large yield declines projected.
 
In addition to average yields, we examined the conditions that produced extremely high and extremely low yields in the past, since weathering these extremes are important for farmers to maintain viability.
 
Our analysis showed that, in the past, high yields of corn in Iowa tended to happen in particularly rainy years, with dry years spelling trouble for corn yields. Fortunately for Iowa, the changes projected for rainfall in the future are relatively small, with little difference between the higher and lower greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. However, the six computer models we used to simulate future climate make different projections, with half predicting a slight increase in rainfall (and therefore an increase in future good yields), while others predict somewhat less rain (and more tough years for corn). 

High yields of wheat in southeast Australia were also associated with wetter years in the past. Such years are consistently predicted to become less common in the future: all climate models and emissions scenarios agree in predicting a major increase in extremely bad years, where more than two-thirds of years will have yields 20% or more below today’s average.  
 
The implications of this work are that increasing temperatures and rainfall variability from greater greenhouse gas emissions pose increasing challenges for agriculture. Research led by our colleague David Lobell has shown that this trend is already evident today: there has been a yield decline for cereal crops since the 1980s of 10% for every 1°C (1.8°F) warming. Many recent studies confirm the potential for yield declines for staple cereal crops under greater warming, especially for wheat.
 
Different regions around the world are poised to experience climate change differently, and the risks depend on both the climate change experienced, and the human systems on the ground there. In the case of Iowan corn, the combination of the farming system and the climate poses less of a risk than wheat production in Australia, which is closer to its limits of viability today. Farmers can prepare for changes already underway, with more projected for the future, but the larger the changes experienced, the more difficult they will be to manage. This reinforces the climate change adage to “manage what we can’t avoid and avoid what we can’t manage” by reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 
 
The research was conducted by an international team led by Dr. Caroline Ummenhofer of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts, USA. We studied historical yield and climate records to understand the effects of climate on crop yields in the past, and then projected how this is likely to change in the future. To do so, we used the latest climate models (six simulations developed by groups in France, Japan, the US, and Australia) and scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions (a business-as-usual scenario of continuing high emissions of greenhouse gases, known as RCP 8.5, and a moderate stabilization scenario called RCP 4.5, which would involve emissions stabilizing at around 5 gigatons of carbon per year by the end of the century, compared with current emissions around 9 gigatons).

I'm excited and honored to be attending the climate summit in Paris as an accredited observer from Lund University. This is where nearly 200 countries will come together and aim to reach an agreement about how to change the path we're now on (a business-as-usual world headed for +4-5°C) to a more sustainable world that avoids the worst impacts of climate change. 

This will be my first time attending the United Nations climate negotiations, and I am looking forward to learning more about the process and how to make my research more relevant to policy, as well as to serve as an advisor to the Youth in Landscapes initiative at the Global Landscapes Forum, and take part in the Anthronaut Experience- a virtual reality hackathon with scientists, artists, designers, and virtual reality experts to make climate science narratives a 3D experience.

As I'm busy packing my bags, I'm gathering reading material for the 16-hour train ride to Paris. Here's what I'll be reading up on: 

General background: 

• The Road to Paris blog curated by my friends and colleagues Denise Young and Johannes Mengel at the International Council for Science is a good place to start- see the highlights here. 
• Seven key issues to be addressed at the Paris climate summit, by my friend and former labmate Simon Donner. 

Current perspectives: 

• Both Nature and Science have special issues devoted to the history of the talks, and what's at stake.
• The current issue of the Economist also features the Paris talks on their cover. 

Preparing for attending the meeting: 

• The COP21 Information Hub is a good place to start for official info on schedules & logistics. 
• Side events schedule
• Science-related events, curated by Johannes and Nora at ICSU 
• Help for Multilateral Environmental Agreement negotiators who encounter problems from Foundation for International Environmental Law & Development - helpful, plain language overview of how negotiations work, and what to do in situations such as "A more experienced negotiator bullies you" or "negative media reports about your country." 
• Guidelines for civil society participation at UNFCCC 
• RINGO news- Lund University is part of the "Research and Independent Non-Governmental Organizations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." RINGO hosts a daily briefing at 09:00. 

Keeping up with the negotiations in real time:

• During the meeting, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin covers the previous day's events and where the negotiations now stand on their website and through Twitter.

I'll be following and Tweeting to the #COP21 hashtag, and also posting under the #LUCOP21 hashtag for members of the Lund University delegation at the COP. Please follow me on Twitter and let me know if you have any questions about the meeting, I'll do my best to answer! 

Our analysis showed the words ‘carbon’, ‘climate’, and ‘change’ are all among the most used words for science, business, NGOs and G7, but not the religious statements, indicating a technical and problem-oriented approach among these groups. The word ‘Earth’/’global’ shared similar ground between religion, science and NGOs, indicating a political or philosophical outlook shared by these groups. Surprisingly, religion and science shared the word ‘human’ among their most used words, indicating a shared worldview seeing people as both the cause and the solution to the problem of climate change.  

In the beginning of the study we hypothesized that there would be words that would be found among all categories, but as the figure shows, there was no word that all five sectors used most commonly. However, the existence of these statements still sends a strong message that the international community - from religious groups to businesses and from scientists to NGOs - wants their leaders and policymakers to focus on stronger action, leading to solutions to tackle human-induced carbon emissions driving climate change in Paris. At the same time, the religious perspectives highlight the social values these choices represent, and how fundamental they are to our way of life.  ​

This post summarizes research by Marius Sandvoll Weschke and Kimberly Nicholas presented at the Transformations conference held in Stockholm, October 2015. ​

Read an interview with Marius about this work in the Finnish newspaper Kyrkpressen here.