Background and History of the GEO glossaries process
UNEP Glossary
The glossaries of the GEO publications were initially developed during the production of GEO 2000. Until recently, GEO had traditionally updated its glossaries through manual efforts with heavy quality control processes and readthroughs, and without a peer review process for these glossaries. The history of how or when terms and definitions were developed was not tracked and key definitions are now nearly untraceable. This has resulted in the duplication of efforts during the production of each publication’s glossary.
Without a systematic approach, the creation of glossaries and authoritative definitions become costly, repetitive, and tedious. In 2020, a new system was developed by the GEO team to better track glossary terms and definitions, shift to a semi-automatic creation process, and include a peer review process. This new approach involved the development of a new ‘Wiki Glossary Bank’, an automated and accurate macro tool to select terms and definitions, followed by peer and author review of the glossaries. This new system has become the foundation for how glossaries are developed for the GEO products and allows for the use of the Glossary Bank by other colleagues within and outside the agency. These new tools and processes allows GEO to collaborate with other assessments through the AGAD to promote synergies that allow assessment processes to combine efforts and generate benefits and time savings for all.
Implications
The Need for a Glossary
Glossaries are essential for uniformity and consistent use of terminology in written communication. “Specifications cannot be written uniformly and unambiguously, and methods cannot be described succinctly without an agreed terminology” [1]. They provide readers with the foundation to understand the vocabulary, that may otherwise be incomprehensible. If a publication does have a glossary, this will lead to increasingly growing problems in publications. Such problems could include:
- An audience can be uninformed or uncertain about key concepts and methods, harming readers’ flow and creating misunderstandings in the narrative or even the intent of the publication. A reader’s uncertainty can also lead to avoidance of certain publication sections which may be critical for their comprehension of the report’s full message.
- Misuse of controversial or politically sensitive terms. If an authoritative definition is not established for a controversial or political term, this can cause misunderstandings in the reader’s perception of the text leading to potentially sensitive situations.
- Without a glossary, translations of the publication can become inaccurate and terms can be taken out of context. Incorrect translation of certain phrases can damage the entire report’s credibility and communication. In translations, the relationship between concepts and their designations are always of concern.
All of these situations can lead to reputational damage for the publishing entity and also to misunderstandings of the key scientific findings, potentially harming key policy processes.
