Editors of several journals in the field of hydrology met during the General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union—EGU in Vienna in April 2017. This event was a follow-up of similar meetings held in 2013 and 2015. These meetings enable the group of editors to review the current status of the journals and the publication process, and to share thoughts on future strategies. Journals were represented at the 2017 meeting by their editors, as shown in the list of authors. The main points on invigorating hydrological research through journal publications are communicated in this joint editorial published in the above journals.

Precipitation (P) and potential evaporation (E_p) are commonly studied drivers of changing freshwater availability, as aridity (E_p/P) explains ∼90% of the spatial differences in mean runoff across the globe. However, it is unclear if changes in aridity over time are also the most important cause for temporal changes in mean runoff and how this degree of importance varies regionally. We show that previous global assessments that address these questions do not properly account for changes due to precipitation, and thereby strongly underestimate the effects of precipitation on runoff. To resolve this shortcoming, we provide an improved Budyko-based global assessment of the relative and absolute sensitivity of precipitation, potential evaporation, and other factors to changes in mean-annual runoff. The absolute elasticity of runoff to potential evaporation changes is always lower than the elasticity to precipitation changes. The global pattern indicates that for 83% of the land grid cells runoff is most sensitive to precipitation changes, while other factors dominate for the remaining 17%. This dominant role of precipitation contradicts previous global assessments, which considered the impacts of aridity changes as a ratio. We highlight that dryland regions generally display high absolute sensitivities of runoff to changes in precipitation, however within dryland regions the relative sensitivity of runoff to changes in other factors (e.g., changing climatic variability, CO₂-vegetation feedbacks, and anthropogenic modifications to the landscape) is often far higher. Nonetheless, at the global scale, surface water resources are most sensitive to temporal changes in precipitation.

In this synthesis paper addressing hydrologic scaling and similarity, we posit that roadblocks in the search for universal laws of hydrology are hindered by our focus on computational simulation (the third paradigm) and assert that it is time for hydrology to embrace a fourth paradigm of data-intensive science. Advances in information-based hydrologic science, coupled with an explosion of hydrologic data and advances in parameter estimation and modeling, have laid the foundation for a data-driven framework for scrutinizing hydrological scaling and similarity hypotheses. We summarize important scaling and similarity concepts (hypotheses) that require testing; describe a mutual information framework for testing these hypotheses; describe boundary condition, state, flux, and parameter data requirements across scales to support testing these hypotheses; and discuss some challenges to overcome while pursuing the fourth hydrological paradigm. We call upon the hydrologic sciences community to develop a focused effort towards adopting the fourth paradigm and apply this to outstanding challenges in scaling and similarity.

The diversity in hydrologic models has historically led to great controversy on the "correct" approach to process-based hydrologic modeling, with debates centered on the adequacy of process parameterizations, data limitations and uncertainty, and computational constraints on model analysis. In this paper, we revisit key modeling challenges on requirements to (1) define suitable model equations, (2) define adequate model parameters, and (3) cope with limitations in computing power. We outline the historical modeling challenges, provide examples of modeling advances that address these challenges, and define outstanding research needs. We illustrate how modeling advances have been made by groups using models of different type and complexity, and we argue for the need to more effectively use our diversity of modeling approaches in order to advance our collective quest for physically realistic hydrologic models.