The Idea of a Hydraulic Engineering Journal

The beginning of an editorship and the 50th anniversary of the first appearance of the Journal of the Hydraulics Division lend themselves to reflections on the ideals that can animate a hydraulic engineering journal. The contemporary context presents multiple extratechnical challenges. The gap between what is being practiced and what is being published is perceived as widening. Some would prefer a more scientific orientation, arguing that our journal compares unfavorably with other “purer” journals in its rigor and prestige. Recent events involving a prestigious science journal have cast doubt on the efficacy of the conventional peer-review procedure. The interests of our readership seem to be becoming increasingly fragmented and specialized. Developments in electronic publishing promise faster, less expensive publication aimed at more targeted audiences, thereby reinforcing the trend to fragmentation. These general issues are neither new nor peculiar to our journal [see Batchelor (1981) for comments on some of these questions].

Real-world problems with which hydraulic engineers must grapple are messy. The extremely broad spectrum of length and time scales, the large spatial heterogeneities, compounded by the sparsity of detailed data, the ill-understood or imprecise conditions at highly irregular, possibly deformable boundaries—all contribute to the technical questions that have traditionally fascinated and frustrated the hydraulician. These complexities may, however, pale in comparison with those raised by the more recent interest in the interaction between flow and biota and the larger implications for aqueous ecosystems. A definition of hydraulic engineering will not be attempted here; a personal and bracing view is expressed in Liggett (2002). Suffice it to say that a response to these challenges requires an equally broad range of methodologies and a similarly heterogeneous journal, where fundamental studies of idealized situations, exploiting sophisticated experimental and theoretical techniques, will jostle with more applied investigations, guided by dimensional analysis and relying heavily on simple lumped models and statistical determination of empirical parameters and coefficients.

In the ecology of ideas, a diversity of topics and techniques makes possible cross-fertilization and competition that should lead to a more robust and vibrant hydraulics community. Technical standards must be maintained, although the appropriate level of rigor can become a broad and deformable gray area (for some, uncomfortably so) with much left to “engineering” judgment. Probably rightly so, rigor has never been a hallmark of engineers; but without rigor, currents are treacherous and other navigational aids, such as a greater reliance on empiricism, must be sought. The role of the reviewer is crucial. In addition to having expertise in a specific field, the reviewer, as a surrogate ideal reader, should be open to different points of view. Although the reviewer is not expected to be entirely free of bias, he or she should make clear any bias; on controversial topics, he or she should not allow bias to unduly influence the evaluation. With all due professional courtesy, a spade should be called a spade; vagueness, looseness, inconsistencies, triteness, and technical deficiencies should be pointed out. The work should be assessed with a view of the larger picture of overall aims and not solely on niggling details; the question is whether the work, in spite of possibly evident flaws, makes a sufficient contribution to hydraulic science and engineering (which is not to be equated with the physics or mechanics of fluids)? Pointed criticisms should be generously balanced with suggestions for improvement.

The onus remains on the authors to provide a clear and well-organized exposition of the study, as well as its methods and objectives, and to argue a convincing case for its contribution to the archival literature. Although conciseness is an ideal, the paper should not be written with only specialists in mind; the author should make an effort to explain the problem and the conclusions, if not necessarily the methods, in terms that can be broadly understood. Case studies can make important contributions; but their wider implications—those not tied specifically to their specific contexts—should be explored, and the general lessons learned should be highlighted. Whether a technically flawless work makes a sufficient contribution can be problematic; what might seem worthy to the authors might seem much less so to reviewers and readers, and more convincing arguments will be necessary for topics that are well trodden or that may have primarily theoretical results with little apparent practical value.

Our journal has evolved over the last $50\text{years}$ , with a history of which we can be justly proud. In these interesting times, we hope that it will continue to be a vital organ, responding appropriately and not necessarily in a knee-jerk fashion to varied external pressures, while providing a stimulating nutrient-rich intellectual habitat for all species of Homo hydraulicus.