Category Archives: peer review

Winegate: Red wine health researcher falsified data

Posted on January 12, 2012 by

From Medical News Today, word of a major failure of peer review spanning years and 11 journals. Researcher Who Studied Benefits Of Red Wine Falsified Data Says University An extensive misconduct investigation that took three years to complete and produced … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 109 Comments

The climate science peer pressure cooker

Posted on January 10, 2012 by

Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? By Patrick J. Michaels – from World Climate Report About 10 years ago, December 20, 2002 to be exact, we published a paper titled “Revised 21st century temperature projections” in the … Continue reading →

Posted in climate ugliness, Michael E. Mann, peer review, satire | Tagged , , , , , , , | 153 Comments

Paging Mike Mann – your dendrochronologist will see you now

Posted on January 3, 2012 by

Tom Nelson has another Climategate 2 email well worth reading Dendrochronologists get spanked by guy with expertise in tree physiology and wood anatomy ClimateGate Email 1738 “However, there are bounds to dendrochronology, as there are to every field of investigation, … Continue reading →

Posted in Michael E. Mann, paleoclimatology, peer review, post-normal science | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 148 Comments

BEST: What I agree with and what I disagree with – plus a call for additional transparency to prevent “pal” review

Posted on October 21, 2011 by

There’s lots of hay being made by the usual romminesque flaming bloggers, some news outlets and the like, over my disagreement with the way data was handled in one of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) papers, the only one … Continue reading →

Posted in Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, peer review | Tagged , , , | 171 Comments

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review

Posted on October 20, 2011 by

UPDATE: see this new story BEST: What I agree with and what I disagree with – plus a call for additional transparency to prevent “pal” review ======================================================= Readers may recall this post last week where I complained about being put in … Continue reading →

Posted in Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, climate data, peer review, post-normal science | Tagged , , , , , , | 409 Comments

Turbo post normal science by press – peer review optional

Posted on October 15, 2011 by

Imagine, if you will, that you are given a complete draft copy of a new paper that has just been submitted to a journal, and that paper cites your work, and it was provided as a professional courtesy before it … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review, post-normal science | Tagged , | 119 Comments

Our sustainable mirth

Posted on October 12, 2011 by

Bishop Hill writes of a new paper, one so “toe curling” it is worth mentioning here to get more exposure. He writes: This is science? This is progress? Reports on Progress in Physics, a journal published by the Institute of Physics … Continue reading →

Posted in Alarmism, peer review | Tagged , , , | 139 Comments

Report: EPA cut corners on climate finding, ignored Data Quality Act, flouted peer review process

Posted on September 28, 2011 by

From: The Daily Caller In a report released Wednesday (at Sen. Inhofe’s request, dating back to April) the inspector general found that the EPA failed to follow the Data Quality Act and its own peer review process when it issued … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review, politics | Tagged , , , , | 36 Comments

Monckton’s letter to the journal Remote Sensing

Posted on September 24, 2011 by

Christopher Monckton writes in email: I sent the attached commentary to the journal a week back and have not had so much as an acknowledgement. So do feel free to use it. It is reproduced below. Readers may recall of … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review, Spencer-Braswell and Dessler | Tagged , , , , | 117 Comments

Peer review is dead, long live blog review

Posted on September 21, 2011 by

By Marc Hendrickx writing in ABC’s The Drum In January 2009, Nature splashed its front cover with the results of a new study titled ‘Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year’. The article was accompanied … Continue reading →

Posted in Antarctic, peer review | Tagged , , , , | 54 Comments

Trenberth gets a rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell published: turnaround 1 day

Posted on September 16, 2011 by

Turbo Peer Review is the new normal it seems. Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit writes: Bishop Hill draws attention to the publication of Trenberth’s comment on Spencer and Braswell 2011 in Remote Sensing. Unlike Trenberth’s presentation to the American Meteorological … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review, Spencer-Braswell and Dessler | Tagged , , , , | 69 Comments

Dessler’s GRL paper video

Posted on September 6, 2011 by

Perhaps fearing that his fast tracked no hurdles rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell wouldn’t be enough to have it the buzz of the blogosphere, highlighted in Real Climate, and blasted all over the web via compliant MSM via the press … Continue reading →

Posted in climate sensitivity, peer review | Tagged , , , | 59 Comments

The Spencer and Braswell story goes viral

Posted on September 3, 2011 by

Earlier today I checked in to the WUWT dashboard and was surprised to see that WUWT had the #1 story on all of WordPress.com this morning: Tonight, checking in again, I discover not only is WUWT still near the top … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review | Tagged , , , | 91 Comments

BREAKING: Editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing resigns over Spencer & Braswell paper

Posted on September 2, 2011 by

UPDATE: Sept 6th Hot off the press: Dessler’s record turnaround time GRL rebuttal paper to Spencer and Braswell (September 4) Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. continues his discussion at his blog: Hatchet Job on John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review | Tagged , , , | 564 Comments

The newest hockey stick

Posted on August 12, 2011 by

Yes that blue line is retractions in scientific journals. Dr Roger Pielke Jr. notes on his blog that: The Wall Street Journal reports that retractions of scientific papers have surged in recent years, with the top 3 journals issuing retractions … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review | 73 Comments

Quote of the Week – rubbishing peer review

Posted on July 19, 2011 by

Here I am, minding my own business, looking at my local newspaper, and just reading what is happening locally. Then, out pops this profound quote of the week that is just gobsmacking. The first line of the story starts out … Continue reading →

Posted in local_issues, peer review | Tagged , | 94 Comments

Breaking: A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008″ – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011)

Posted on July 4, 2011 by

The Kaufmann et al 2011 paper (Note: Michael L. Mann is a co-author, not the same as Michael E. Mann of hockey team fame) was embargoed until 8PM GMT (12PM PDT) today, and we have an advance copy thanks to … Continue reading →

Posted in Climate News, peer review | Tagged , , | 185 Comments

Mann’s inverted Tiljander data survives another round of peer review

Posted on June 22, 2011 by

* Steve McIntyre reports (via commenter AMac) that Mann’s inverted Tiljander sediment data lives on in Kemp et al 2011 like some zombie that will not die.  I feel for graduate student Kemp, who will forever have the stink of … Continue reading →

Posted in paleoclimatology, peer review | Tagged | 66 Comments

Lindzen on getting the “special treatment” for publishing papers

Posted on June 9, 2011 by

Lindzen-Choi ‘Special Treatment’: Is Peer Review Biased Against Nonalarmist Climate Science? by Chip Knappenberger [Editor’s note: The following material was supplied to us by Dr. Richard Lindzen as an example of how research that counters climate-change alarm receives special treatment in … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review | Tagged , | 136 Comments

CO2 deafens “Nemo” – or, how many ichthyologists can you fit in that car?

Posted on June 4, 2011 by

We’ve already had a “climate craziness of the week” so I’ll just file this bit of blather under another category. First, this article in The Independent, which aims to scare the children. Now here’s the press release from the University … Continue reading →

Posted in Alarmism, peer review, post-normal science, ridiculae | Tagged , , , , , | 122 Comments

Bias In the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary And Personal Account

Posted on April 20, 2011 by

by Dr. Roger Pielke Senior There is an informative article by Ross McKittrick McKitrick, Ross R. (2011) “Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account” in Climate Coup, Patrick J. Michaels ed., Cato Inst. Washington DC. This … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review, Science | Tagged , , , | 61 Comments

“Science has been sitting on his critique of Dessler’s paper for months”

Posted on April 2, 2011 by

On Recent Criticisms of My Research By Dr. Roy Spencer One of the downsides of going against the supposed “consensus of scientists” on global warming — other than great difficulty in getting your research funded and published — is that … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review, post-normal science | Tagged , , | 108 Comments

An opportunity for online peer review

Posted on March 27, 2011 by

I have been asked to present this for review by readers here, and to solicit critical comments for the purpose of improving the presentation. Moderators please remove any off-topic comments and commenters please stick to the issues of review. – … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review | Tagged , , , | 202 Comments

Willis hits the news stands in London

Posted on February 27, 2011 by

Christopher Booker’s Telegraph column used Willis Eschenbach’s recent Open Letter to Nature as the basis for the Sunday column: Booker writes:

Posted in peer review, Science | Tagged , , | 106 Comments

The code of Nature: making authors part with their programs

Posted on February 26, 2011 by

Guest post by Shub Niggurath However, as it is now often practiced, one can make a good case that computing is the last refuge of the scientific scoundrel. —Randall LeVeque Some backstory first A very interesting editorial has appeared recently … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review, Science | Tagged , | 71 Comments