Category: Uncategorized

Once upon a time, there was a river called San Diego

Today, I want to talk about water, although World River Day passed a few weeks ago. There’s a river called San Diego passing through my neighborhood, but you will not see water flowing there. All we see are a few patches of water here and there, which are used by mosquitoes for breeding. There have been some efforts for conservation, and there is good riparian vegetation along the river strip and some wetland ecosystems. But it is no longer a river. We have effectively killed it. Water no longer flows.

That is why I have never told my daughter that this is the San Diego River. If I do, she will be misled. It will give her the impression that a river is a strip of land with some trees and a few ponds.

We talk a lot about water resource management, but I think we are approaching water in the wrong way. First, we need to stop thinking of ourselves as water managers. Who gave us the right to manage water? Did we create the rivers? If not, why are we managing them as if they exist only for us? More than 100,000 species depend directly on rivers and freshwater ecosystems for survival. We are just one more species that also depends on rivers. We can take some water from rivers or lakes gracefully to fulfill our needs, but we have no right to manage them. We should stop calling ourselves water managers because we certainly don’t know how to manage it. If we did, there would be plenty of water flowing in the rivers of California, including the San Diego River. We tried to manage, but in essence, we destroyed the beautiful river systems that were running wonderfully before our greed took over.

The problem, I see, is that we don’t know the value of water. Before we talk about managing water, we should first hold some in our palms and meditate upon it so that we understand its gravity. If we do so, the water in our palms might communicate with the water inside our bodies. If we feel the water within us — which makes up more than 70% of our bodies — we will probably understand how important water is. The water inside us might give us the wisdom to borrow from natural sources without destroying them. Otherwise, we will continue to destroy those sources with our book knowledge.

To me, water is very precious. When I was a child, I had to fetch water in a vessel from about half a mile away on hilly terrain every day. There was no excuse for wasting water; every drop counted. Water didn’t just flow through a tap automatically — every splash was brought through effort.

We took a bath with one bucket of water. Another bucket carried us through the whole day. My mother managed to wash a pile of clothes with just one or two buckets. She was never taught anything about water management.

That is why water is more than a utility bill for me. I feel it. I see it as a part of life. That is why I hold it with care in my palm. I never leave the tap open when brushing or washing my face. I cannot.

Last year, I had the chance to drive through the north–south stretch of California. The Central Valley, once a semi-arid land, was transformed into a rich agricultural region producing fruits, nuts, and vegetables about a hundred years ago. We connected multiple rivers, including the Sacramento and San Joaquin, and built one of the most complex networks of aqueducts, squeezing groundwater to its full extent to irrigate the farmlands of the Central Valley. There is no doubt that what we achieved was an engineering marvel. However, while it might not have been obvious at the time, it is now painfully clear that we have effectively killed the rivers of California.

Now that we have killed the rivers, what are we trying to manage? What are we trying to squeeze out of rivers that are already dead? What are we spending billions of dollars on? What is the cost of restoring a river to its flowing nature? How many billions of dollars?

See, it is not about money. Money can’t bring a dead river back to life — just as it can’t bring a dead person back to life.

So what is the solution? Begin with repentance. Stop interfering in the name of management. Then, retreat — return to your place as much as you can. That’s all we need to do. Nature will take care of the rest. It may take time, but nature always knows how to heal itself. When you step back, the water will begin to flow again.

Water is not a resource to manage; it is the basic element of life. It is within us. We are 70% water. Acknowledge it and be grateful for it.

Climate and Health Workshop in Seattle

Last week, I was in Seattle attending the Climate & Health workshop organized by Climate Advocacy Lab. I was inspired to meet with so many health professionals, including doctors and nurses, the ones who directly interact with us as patients. They certainly know better where our society’s overall health is going and how our climate and environment is affecting us. I don’t get to interact with the people who are directly impacted by the degradation of our climate and environment like the doctors and nurses do, so I have deep respect for their knowledge and what they do every day. Climatic issues such as extreme heat and air pollution have already been linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as mental, reproductive, and immune system health.

The rainy city of Seattle, also known to be a Coffee Capital didn’t disappoint me at all. However, as the Ethiopean Uber driver showed the Starbucks Headquarter from the window, I had to remind him that the coffee actually originated from Ethiopia. It was my first time in Seattle, but my imagination of it being similar to Vancouver was true. I got the opportunity to see the numerous wetlands Seattle has, and taste the blackberries found on the roadsides, like I did earlier in Vancouver—thanks to my local guide who also attended the training. However, I regret not being able to see the beavers, not going to the Pike Place Market, and especially not meeting with Bill Gates this time in person because of my tight schedule. 😊

One highlight of the workshop was the power of storytelling to bring out the real-world impact of climate and environment on health. Here is my scribbled story that I had shared with the group:

A usual day in my life back in 2008. I am in Kathmandu, one of the most polluted cities in the world. The city is very crowded and always in a rush. I have to go to my office on a motorbike every day. As I step out of my home, I can’t breathe fresh air. I am always on a mask when outside. When I come back home, my clothes are dirty, and my bike is fully covered with dust. As I wipe my bike with a small towel, the cloud of dust appears in the light of the setting sun. I enter my home, change my clothes, and wash my face, after realizing that there was not enough water in the bucket to take a bath (forget about shower).

That day, I really thought about our climate and environment. An immediate question in my mind was: how can I personally come out of this situation? But I was more strongly motivated by the question – what can I do to solve these problems? My career path has been mostly accidental, but those questions certainly played a role in driving me to where I am today.

There are hundreds of stories like this to tell but for now, I leave you with some of the pictures from Seattle.

Let’s do our my part in making this world a better place to live, for us, and for our children.

New journal topic launched

We have just launched a new research topic in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science — Atmospheric Dust: How it affects climate, environment and life on Earth?

Please follow this link to know more details about the topic and article submission procedure.

Frontiers in Environmental Science is a leading open-access journal which is redefining the publication process by easing the bureaucracy of the publication process. It uses a user-friendly manuscript interface for manuscript management. I hope you will consider submitting your upcoming articles in this issue. 

Understanding publication metrics: impact factor and h-index

I was looking for some papers in Google Scholar yesterday and accidentally clicked on ‘Metrics’ icon located on the right side of the page. In front of me was a list of top 100 journals (of the world) based on their h-index. I was surprised to see that most of the journals in the list were in the field of biological sciences, physics, and chemistry. To my dismay, I didn’t see the journal ‘Nature Geosciences’, the most revered (sorry if you don’t like to say so) journal in the field of Geosciences. But do the above results imply that only the ladies and gentlemen in biology, physics, and chemistry publish good research? Does that mean Geo-scientists watch movies all the time?

The answer is certainly “no”.

111

So the question is:

Why the journals in biology, physics, and chemistry have the highest impact factor? 

To answer this question, we have to answer another question first:

What exactly is an h-index?

According to Wikipedia, “A scientist has index h if h of his/her Np papers have at least h citations each, and the other (Np − h) papers have no more than h citations each.”

Little confused? Very reasonable! But it is very simple.

If a scientist has an h-index of 12, it means that he/she has published 12 papers that received 12 or more citations.

The h-index was proposed by physicist Jorge E. Hirsh in 2005 aiming to measure both the productivity and citation impact.

So to maintain a high h-index, you have to keep publishing while maintaining the quality of your publications (so that you receive more citations). If you publish a paper that is eventually not cited, you are wasting your time as it won’t contribute to your h-index no matter how many more such papers you publish. The h-index for a journal also means the same thing.

Now we are in a situation to answer the original question. If a journal has a high h-index, it generally means that it has published higher number of papers that received higher number of citations. But what does that really mean? It simply means that there are more people working in that field so that the probability of number of papers being published (and cited) is higher.

Still doesn’t make sense? Lets look at this statistics here about the number of PhDs awarded in 2008 (of course in the US). The number of doctorates awarded in biological sciences is 7,793 while it is 862 for earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences. So obviously we can expect more publications in biological sciences, and hence more citations, and hence higher h-index, in the journals of that field. This is not surprising considering the fact that the history of research in biological sciences, physics, and chemistry is much longer than that of Geosciences. I hope I answered the original question.

Unfortunately, h-index is not perfect as is this world. For example, if a scientist published only one paper in his life time that received say 2,000 citations, his h-index is 1. Another scientist who published one paper and received only 15 citations, would still have an h-index of 1. Another drawback of these metrics including the h-index is that they do not reflect the difference among different fields. So the h-index of a journal/professor of biology cannot be compared to the h-index of a professor/journal of Geosciences.

In your Google Scholar profile, you will also see another index called i10-index developed by google, which, in fact, is very similar to the h-index. It is just the number of your papers that received at least 10 citations.

Another frequently asked question:

Do you really need to publish in a journal having a very high impact factor to prove yourself?

The answer is “not really”. Have you realized that the impact factor of your paper may be higher or lower than the impact factor of the journal itself?

According to Wikipedia, the impact factor of a journal in any given year is the average number of citations received per paper published in that journal during the two preceding years. So if a journal has a high impact factor, either the journal received higher number of citations or the journal accepted fewer number of articles, or it could be both. For most of the journals, the acceptance ratio would not be too much different. So the major component affecting the impact factor is the number of citations indeed.

Lets take an example of a paper published in 2013. This paper published in April 2013 has received 25 citations until July 2015. That means the impact factor of this paper is 25. Note that the impact factor of the journal Nature in which this paper was published is 41.45 in 2014. So it can be said that this paper is significantly below average for this journal.

Lets take another contrasting example. This paper has received 50 citations in a similar time period, i.e., between May 2013 to July 2015. This means that the impact factor of this paper is 50. Now compare this to the impact factor of the JGR-Atmosphere journal in which it was published, i.e., 3.43. It means that this paper has significantly higher impact than the journal’s average impact.

So it really doesn’t matter in which journal you publish your paper. The only thing that matters is whether you receive citations or not.

One last question:

What is the best way to measure productivity of a researcher?

There will probably be many indices rolling in the future each claiming that it is the best. But, perhaps the best way to evaluate a researcher’s productivity or performance is to simply look at both the number of citations and the number of publications, both of which are shown by Google Scholar and other academic search engines (if made public). In addition, quality of the paper must be evaluated by a researcher in that field. It is that simple. I am not saying that we don’t need those indices. When making comparison among many candidates, those indices are indeed very helpful. And it is always fun to compare your index with that of your peers in Google Scholar. 🙂

Thank you for reading.

P.S.: The original paper about the h-index can be found here.

The author is thankful to Travis Swanson for helpful discussion.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

Secret Link