Category Archives: Peer review

A courtesy note ahead of publication for Risbey et al. 2014

People send me stuff. In this case I have received an embargoed paper and press release from Nature from another member of the news media who wanted me to look at it. The new paper is scheduled to be published … Continue reading

About these ads
Posted in Peer review, Stephan Lewandowsky | 336 Comments

The Science Publishing Complex – 1% publish 41% of all papers

Erik Stokstad in Science (AAAS) writes: Publishing is one of the most ballyhooed metrics of scientific careers, and every researcher hates to have a gap in that part of his or her CV. Here’s some consolation: A new study finds … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review, Science | 36 Comments

Corruption Of Academic Journals For Profit and Climate Change Propaganda

Opinion by Dr. Tim Ball Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than … Continue reading

Posted in Opinion, Peer review | 75 Comments

The PNAS ‘old boys’ club': NAS members can ‘choose who will review their paper’

Hot of the heels of the busted “Peer Review Ring” we have this from Nature News: In April, the US National Academy of Sciences elected 105 new members to its ranks. Academy membership is one the most prestigious honours for … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | 54 Comments

‘Peer review ring’ – busted

From the Washington Post: Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond, each retraction is a big deal. Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | 84 Comments

National Association of Scholars: ‘much of the U.S.-sponsored research behind the “scientific consensus” on global warming may be less rigorous than its advocates would have the public believe’

Short-Circuiting Peer Review in Climate Science Peter Wood, Rachelle DeJong. National Association of Scholars How reliable are the scientific findings on which the Environmental Protection Agency bases its proposed regulations?   According to a new research report, many of the findings … Continue reading

Posted in EPA, Government funding of science, Peer review | 33 Comments

Mann’s new AMO paper: ‘Had I been a reviewer, I would have pointed this out and recommended rejection. ‘

Mann’s new paper recharacterizing the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation A guest post by Nic Lewis Introduction Michael Mann has had a paper on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) accepted by Geophysical Research Letters: “On forced temperature changes, internal variability, and the … Continue reading

Posted in Michael E. Mann, Peer review | 100 Comments

Journal takes Lewandowsky and his supporters to task on ‘threats’ over retracted ‘Recursive Fury’ paper.

This will be a top sticky post for a day, new stories will appear below this one Dana Nuccitelli, the Guardian, Joe Romm, and other overly emotional climate propagandists should heed this message, you’ve been put on notice in a … Continue reading

Posted in Lewgate, Peer review, Stephan Lewandowsky | 157 Comments

Lewandowsky paper flushed, then floated again

Today has been entertaining to say the least. On Twitter, Ben Pile of Climate Resistance has been telling us all about how he learned that the Lewandowsky-Cook Paper#2 – titled ‘Recursive Fury’, which detailed all manners of conspiratorial ideation theory, … Continue reading

Posted in Bad science, Peer review, Ridiculae, Stephan Lewandowsky | 123 Comments

Monckton says he’ll take over the shuttered Pattern Recognition in Physics Journal

In an emotional commentary written for the WorldNetDaily (aka WND) Christopher Monckton has said that he’ll take over the journal and publish a first issue in March 2014. He displays what he calls a “mockup cover” (shown below) that consists … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | 236 Comments

The Copernicus-PRP fiasco: predictable and preventable

Post on the Copernicus – Tallbloke fiasco please advise Continue reading

Posted in Opinion, Peer review | 465 Comments

The ‘planetary tidal influence on climate’ fiasco: strong armed science tactics are overkill, due process would work better

UPDATE: 1/19/14 2;30 PM PST There is an update to this post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/the-copernicus-prp-fiasco-predictable-and-preventable/ Comments on this thread are now closed, continue there. – Anthony While a journal is forced to self destruct by external pressure from “team climate science”, … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , | 272 Comments

New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!

This is on a tip from Dr. Leif Svalgaard, WUWT’s resident solar expert. It was just published in the journal Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, and is open access. I found this study’s conclusion a bit amusing, because there are numerous … Continue reading

Posted in Climate News, ENSO, Hiatus in Global Warming, Peer review, Science, Solar | Tagged , , | 180 Comments

Peer Review; Last Refuge of the (Uninformed) Troll

Current peer review science, by attempting to explain away model failure, in fact confirms that the science is wrong Guest essay by David M. Hoffer It has become a favorite tactic amongst trolls to declare their belief in peer reviewed … Continue reading

Posted in Modeling, Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 244 Comments

Thanks, I’ll pass

People send me stuff. I got this email today with the subject: Publish Your Research Paper And then I read the image that was the advertisement for the new journal. Yo, I’m invited to contribute “resarch”.

Posted in Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , , | 59 Comments

The Vast Majority of Raw Data From Old Scientific Studies May Now Be Missing

From the people that know how to save and care for things of importance, comes this essay from The Smithsonian: One of the foundations of the scientific method is the reproducibility of results. In a lab anywhere around the world, a … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , , | 144 Comments

Science self-corrects: bogus study claiming Roundup tolerant GMO corn causes cancer to be retracted

Whoo boy. This sounds like a familiar climate episode. Andrew Revkin tips me to this retraction of a paper that got screaming headlines worldwide, and says this along with the photo. (Warning don’t click “continue reading” while eating Thanksgiving dinner).

Posted in Agriculture, Peer review, Post-normal science, Science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 124 Comments

Journals Not Enforcing Their Policies

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach From an interesting post entitled “Trust and Don’t Bother To Verify” on Judith Curry’s excellent blog , I’ve taken the following quote: Journals’ growing insistence that at least some raw data be made available seems … Continue reading

Posted in Bad science, Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , , , | 159 Comments

Why Climate Science is Fallible

Guest essay by Dr. David Deming We live in a scientific age. The sciences are viewed as the only real sources of authoritative information. Knowledge derived from other epistemological systems is regarded as having less credibility. The conclusions of philosophy … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review, Science | Tagged , , | 203 Comments

Gatekeeping at Geophysical Research Letters

Dr. Judith Curry writes: As the IPCC struggles with its inconvenient truth – the pause and the growing discrepancy between models and observations – the obvious question is: why is the IPCC just starting to grapple with this issue now, … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 125 Comments

Limiting scientific debate: A change in the AGU policy on Presenting Alternative Scientific Viewpoints

Guest essay by Roger A. Pielke Sr. In the August 20 2013 issue of EOS both the AGU Statement on Climate Change [ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO340006/pdf ] and my comment on the Statement [ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO340007/pdf ] were published. However, I was not … Continue reading

Posted in Opinion, Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , , | 111 Comments

Peer Evil – the rotten business model of modern science

Guest essay by Abzats. The most exciting period in science was, arguably, 1895-1945. It was marked by discoveries that changed the foundations of modern science: X-rays, quantum mechanics, superconductivity, relativity theory and nuclear energy. Then, compare this with the next … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review, Science | Tagged , , | 158 Comments

The madness of 97% 98% consensus herds

UPDATE: comments welcome on Dr. Richard Tol’s draft paper on this issue, see below. This will be a top post for a day, new posts will appear below this one – Anthony “Men, it has been well said, think in … Continue reading

Posted in 97% consensus, Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 169 Comments

Peer review falls for recycled manuscripts

Margaret writes in tips and notes: More about the failure of peer review— or more precisely its inconsistency in producing reliable assessments of the value of the submitted article http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844 Abstract A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | 59 Comments

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

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

Posted in Peer review, Stephan Lewandowsky | Tagged , , , | 52 Comments

How a scientist becomes a con man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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