President’s Column: A Cold Look at the Quality of SPE Publications
Olivier Houzé · Journal of Petroleum Technology · 2025
_ Editor’s Note: This is a summary of the January episode of the President’s vodcast. We encourage you to watch the episode to see the full conversation. Introduction Publication quality was one of the 2025 topics I discussed in my September 2024 JPT column. While I believe we can be proud of the best of our publications, generally strengthened by rigorous peer review, I also believe we have a serious problem with the quality of, let’s say, our lowest quartile, and maybe more. Until recently, we could live with this, i.e., use the best and ignore the rest. But now we are applying generative AI to all our content to fine-tune energy large language models (ELLM). What are the impacts of a “heterogeneous” publication quality (if such heterogeneity is confirmed) on the resulting ELLM? Originally, I wanted to dedicate a single column to the issue of publication quality. But as I was researching, I realized this topic deserves two columns—one to present the issues and another on the possible paths to address these issues. The time interval between these columns will be used to consult groups and individuals who know the SPE publication aspects better than I do, and who would likely be part of any solution. I know it is subjective, but we have all heard comments like the one below from an “interlocutor” (albeit a friend of mine who feels comfortable enough to be brutally blunt). “The quality of SPE papers is going down the drain. There is no bottom. I have given up on going to technical sessions as well. Nothing is comparable to the situation when I joined the industry. There are too many events and publications. And worst of all, however bad a paper is, it will find an event to be accepted and make it to OnePetro. We have lost our way.” I confess that such comments generally come from senior members. Sometimes, I catch myself thinking along these lines, although I should know better. This can be heard at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (ATCE), our flagship technical event once the holy grail for any member to publish his or her work. Even SPE’s peer-reviewed papers do not escape the wrath of our most critical members. When digging a bit, my interlocutor acknowledges that there are still good works published by SPE, sufficient to make our industry move forward. However, these papers are (and I quote) “drowning in an ocean of mediocracy!” So, are we that bad, or is this just the complaint of grumpy old members missing their glory days? After all, our younger members, who have no such reference points, seem to be reasonably happy with what we deliver. As for my discussion on governance last month, any discussion on publication quality is, up to a point, a subjective topic, and it is not about looking at individual papers and pointing fingers at their authors. After all, if we set the bar too low, we cannot criticize our members for not jumping high enough.