Category Archives: Peer review

Is John Cook planning to use systematically biased “correct” survey answers to make unbiased skeptics look biased?

Posted on May 8, 2013 by

Guest post by Alec Rawls After finalizing a long post on John Cook’s crowd-sourced consensus-rating survey  (to be titled “I take Cook’s survey so you don’t have to”), I submitted my completed survey to Cook’s website and received an automated … Continue reading →

About these ads
Posted in Peer review, Stephan Lewandowsky | Tagged , , , | 52 Comments

How a scientist becomes a con man

Posted on April 29, 2013 by

Fraud and deceit are a slippery slope Story submitted by Bruce Webster An article in the New York Times chronicles the descent of a sociologist into wholesale fraud. It is worth reading the whole article, because I believe it offers … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 115 Comments

Quote of the week – solving the peer review integrity issue

Posted on March 26, 2013 by

A poll follows. Over at Bishop Hill, he’s listed some quotes from Geoffry Boulton on scientific integrity that I found interesting. He writes (with apologies for posting in full, I couldn’t see any way to excerpt this short article): ============================================================== … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , | 95 Comments

Pielke Jr. appears to get booted from a journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science

Posted on February 21, 2013 by

UPDATE: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. leaves this comment: Submitted on 2013/02/21 at 8:28 am Neil Adger sent me a response for posting. You can see it as an update on the original post: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html He says cock-up, not conspiracy. I … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , , | 70 Comments

Eurekalert’s lack of press release standards – a systemic problem with science and the media

Posted on January 29, 2013 by

I noted a link to WUWT in this NYT essay by Andrew Revkin titled: When Publicity Precedes Peer Review in Climate Science (Part One). I liked Andy’s bit of artwork to go with it, seen at right below. I was … Continue reading →

Posted in media, Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 42 Comments

Lewandowsky backs down – removes “denier” citation from paper

Posted on September 27, 2012 by

Jeff Condon writes at the Air Vent: Over the past few weeks I have had several communications with Dr. Lewandowsky regarding his wonderful contribution to science very appropriately titled: MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science … Continue reading →

Posted in Climate ugliness, Peer review, Stephan Lewandowsky | Tagged | 50 Comments

Stephan Lewandowsky’s slow motion Psychological Science train wreck

Posted on September 5, 2012 by

I’m a bit of a latecomer to this affair, as Lucia and Jo Nova took an early lead on pointing out the many problems with the survey methodology (or lack thereof) with the paper: Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, … Continue reading →

Posted in Climate ugliness, Opinion, Peer review, Stephan Lewandowsky | Tagged , , , , | 154 Comments

Scientific peer review and publishing taking a turn for the better

Posted on July 24, 2012 by

A number of people have brought this recent article in the Economist to my attention. Some excerpts:

Posted in Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 76 Comments

More on Koutsoyiannis and the homogenization of temperature data – plus some comments on blog review

Posted on July 20, 2012 by

First, correcting an error that originated with the blog The Hockey Schtick about not giving appropriate credit. Marcel Crok writes on De staat van het klimaat One of the basic principles of blogging is to give credit when credit is … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 35 Comments

AGU Letter: Journals Should Ask Authors to Publish Results

Posted on July 14, 2012 by

Dr. Leif Svalgaard directs my attention via email to this letter in Eos, Vol. 93, No. 29, 17 July 2012, which calls for more “open science” in the role of peer review, always a good thing. I’m repeating parts of … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , , , | 29 Comments

A wave of heated peer pressure results in shrinking integrity

Posted on July 8, 2012 by

Over on the thread The folly of blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming there is a lively discussion going on between people that think the Eastern US heatwave hype by media and a few activist scientists is … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review, Post-normal science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 145 Comments

UK Conference of Science Journalists: ‘institutions unlikely to fairly investigate allegations of fraud made against their own’

Posted on July 1, 2012 by

Guest post by Douglas J. Keenan The 2012 UK Conference of Science Journalists was held on June 25th. The programme is available on the UKCSJ web site. The conference is intended for science journalists, as its name says; I attended … Continue reading →

Posted in media, Peer review, Post-normal science, Science | Tagged , , | 42 Comments

Editorial in Nature calls for open access data – ‘Science’s capacity for self-correction comes from its openness to scrutiny and challenge.’

Posted on June 28, 2012 by

An excerpt: Open your minds and share your results An open approach is the best way to maximize the benefits of research for both scientists and the public, says Geoffrey Boulton There is a compelling case for having open access … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 63 Comments

Throwing down the gauntlet on reproducibility in Climate Science – Forest et al. (2006)

Posted on June 25, 2012 by

After spending a year trying to get the data from the author without success, Nic Lewis has sent a letter to the editor of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) and has written to me to ask that I bring attention to … Continue reading →

Posted in Climate sensitivity, Modeling, Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 82 Comments

Dr. Paul Bain Responds to Critics of Use of “Denier” Term

Posted on June 20, 2012 by

UPDATE: Dr. Robert G. Brown of Duke University,  the commenter rgbatduke, made a response that was commented on by several here.  It is eloquent, insightful and worthy of consideration.  See below. Dr. Paul Bain, the lead and corresponding author of … Continue reading →

Posted in Climate ugliness, Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 203 Comments

Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature’s ‘denier’ gaffe

Posted on June 20, 2012 by

I’ve still not received any reply from Nature Climate Change editor Rory Howlett to my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, … Continue reading →

Posted in Climate ugliness, Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 141 Comments

Petition to make taxpayer funded science research paywalless

Posted on June 14, 2012 by

Like many of you, I get tired of paywalls, especially when there’s “science by press release” yet the paper remains hidden from the public while the paper gets wide MSM coverage. So I’ve reposted from Lucia’s The Blackboard (be sure … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , | 83 Comments

Revkin on the Gergis et al ‘on hold’ affair

Posted on June 12, 2012 by

I promised Andrew Revkin yesterday that I’d give his post on Gergis et all some attention, because he’s done a good job of summarizing it all, plus getting some other angles, such as that of Retractionwatch. I was especially pleased … Continue reading →

Posted in Paleoclimatology, Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 58 Comments

Jo Nova chronicles the snapping of the Gergis hockey stick

Posted on June 9, 2012 by

Note: I’m reposting this excellent essay from Jo Nova to give it a wide as an audience as possible. Be sure to bookmark her site if you have not already. – Anthony 300,000 dollars and three years to produce a … Continue reading →

Posted in Paleoclimatology, Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 148 Comments

American Meteorological Society disappears withdraws Gergis et al paper on proxy temperature reconstruction after post peer review finds fatal flaws

Posted on June 8, 2012 by

UPDATE: It appears the paper has been withdrawn and credit acknowledgement given to Steve McIntyre, see below: There was yet another recent “hockey stick” being foisted on the public. Gergis et al. It says: The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in … Continue reading →

Posted in Paleoclimatology, Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 137 Comments