Technical assessment and evaluation of environmental models and software : letter to the Editor

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Alexandrov, G. A.
dc.contributor.author Ames, D.
dc.contributor.author Bellocchi, G.
dc.contributor.author Bruen, Michael
dc.contributor.author Crout, N.
dc.contributor.author Erechtchoukova, M.
dc.contributor.author Hildebrandt, A.
dc.contributor.author Hoffman, F.
dc.contributor.author Jackisch, C.
dc.contributor.author Khaiter, P.
dc.contributor.author Mannina, G.
dc.contributor.author Matsunaga, T.
dc.contributor.author Purucker, S. T.
dc.contributor.author Rivington, M.
dc.contributor.author Samaniego, L.
dc.date.accessioned 2011-08-03T11:28:00Z
dc.date.available 2011-08-03T11:28:00Z
dc.date.copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. en
dc.date.issued 2011-03
dc.identifier.citation Environmental Modelling and Software en
dc.identifier.issn 1364-8152
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10197/3064
dc.description.abstract This letter details the collective views of a number of independent researchers on the technical assessment and evaluation of environmental models and software. The purpose is to stimulate debate and initiate action that leads to an improved quality of model development and evaluation, so increasing the capacity for models to have positive outcomes from their use. As such, we emphasize the relationship between the model evaluation process and credibility with stakeholders (including funding agencies) with a view to ensure continued support for modelling efforts. Many journals, including EM&S, publish the results of environmental modelling studies and must judge the work and the submitted papers based solely on the material that the authors have chosen to present and on how they present it. There is considerable variation in how this is done with the consequent risk of considerable variation in the quality and usefulness of the resulting publication. Part of the problem is that the review process is reactive, responding to the submitted manuscript. In this letter, we attempt to be proactive and give guidelines for researchers, authors and reviewers as to what constitutes best practice in presenting environmental modelling results. This is a unique contribution to the organisation and practice of model-based research and the communication of its results that will benefit the entire environmental modelling community. For a start, our view is that the community of environmental modellers should have a common vision of minimum standards that an environmental model must meet. A common vision of what a good model should be is expressed in various guidelines on Good Modelling Practice. The guidelines prompt modellers to codify their practice and to be more rigorous in their model testing. Our statement within this letter deals with another aspect of the issue – it prompts professional journals to codify the peer-review process. Introducing a more formalized approach to peer-review may discourage reviewers from accepting invitations to review given the additional time and labour requirements. The burden of proving model credibility is thus shifted to the authors. Here we discuss how to reduce this burden by selecting realistic evaluation criteria and conclude by advocating the use of standardized evaluation tools as this is a key issue that needs to be tackled. en
dc.description.sponsorship Not applicable en
dc.format.extent 262962 bytes
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.language.iso en en
dc.publisher Elsevier en
dc.relation.requires Architecture, Landscape & Civil Engineering Research Collection en
dc.relation.requires Critical Infrastructure Group Research Collection en
dc.relation.requires Urban Institute Ireland Research Collection en
dc.rights This is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Environmental Modelling & Software. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Environmental Modelling & Software Volume 26, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 328-336 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.08.004 en
dc.subject Environmental modelling en
dc.subject Environmental software en
dc.subject Model evaluation en
dc.subject Model credibility en
dc.subject Software verification en
dc.subject Environmental assessment en
dc.subject.lcsh Environmental sciences--Computer simulation--Evaluation en
dc.subject.lcsh Environmental sciences--Software--Evaluation en
dc.subject.lcsh Environmental impact analysis--Computer simulation--Evaluation en
dc.subject.lcsh Environmental impact analysis--Software--Evaluation en
dc.title Technical assessment and evaluation of environmental models and software : letter to the Editor en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.internal.availability Full text available en
dc.internal.webversions Publisher's version
dc.internal.webversions http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.08.004
dc.status Peer reviewed en
dc.identifier.volume 26 en
dc.identifier.issue 3 en
dc.identifier.startpage 328 en
dc.identifier.endpage 336 en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.08.004
dc.neeo.contributor Alexandrov|G. A.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Ames|D.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Bellocchi|G.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Bruen|Michael|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Crout|N.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Erechtchoukova|M.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Hildebrandt|A.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Hoffman|F.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Jackisch|C.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Khaiter|P.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Mannina|G.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Matsunaga|T.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Purucker|S. T.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Rivington|M.|aut|
dc.neeo.contributor Samaniego|L.|aut|


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

This item is available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland. No item may be reproduced for commercial purposes. For other possible restrictions on use please refer to the publisher's URL where this is made available, or to notes contained in the item itself. Other terms may apply.

If you are a publisher or author and have copyright concerns for any item, please email research.repository@ucd.ie and the item will be withdrawn immediately. The author or person responsible for depositing the article will be contacted within one business day.

Search Research Repository


Advanced Search

Browse