Tag 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

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

ATI’s FOI request to the University of Arizona ‘excessively burdensome’

Posted on February 6, 2013 by

Chris Horner writes in with this news, I had to chuckle at some of the language UofA used in the reply, seen below, as if Malcolm Hughes and Jonathan Overpeck had to sit in the scribe room on hard wooden … Continue reading →

Posted in FOI | Tagged , , , , , , | 39 Comments

Update on Watts et al. 2012

Posted on August 2, 2012 by

My sincere thanks to everyone who has provided widespread review of our draft paper. There have been hundreds of suggestions and corrections submitted in comments and in email, and for that I am very grateful.  That sort of input is … Continue reading →

Posted in Watts et al 2012 | Tagged , , , , | 81 Comments

Why the BEST papers failed to pass peer review

Posted on July 29, 2012 by

Whoa, this is heavy.  Ross McKitrick, who was a peer review referee for the BEST papers with the Journal of Geophysical Research got fed up with Muller’s media blitzing and  tells his story: excerpts: In October 2011, despite the papers … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 107 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

Forcing or Feedback?

Posted on June 7, 2012 by

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach I read a Reviewer’s Comment on one of Richard Lindzen’s papers today, a paper about the tropics from 20°N to 20°S, and I came across this curiosity (emphasis mine): Lastly, the authors go through convoluted … Continue reading →

Posted in Albedo, clouds, feedbacks, Peer review | Tagged , , | 87 Comments

The Journal Science – Free the code

Posted on April 17, 2012 by

In my opinion, this is a testament to Steve McIntyre’s tenacity. Via the GWPF: At Last, The Right Lesson From Climategate Fiasco Monday, 16 April 2012 11:21 PhysOrg A diverse group of academic research scientists from across the U.S. have … Continue reading →

Posted in Climategate | Tagged , , , , , , | 248 Comments

Two opinions on the state of science publishing

Posted on January 9, 2012 by

I’ve been made aware of two different opinions on state of science publishing as it relates to peer review and the pressure to publish even faster due to the Internet and all of its “instalaunch” tools. First, in Nature, a … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 93 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

The team trying to get “direct action” on Soon and Baliunas at Harvard

Posted on November 28, 2011 by

Direct Action at Harvard By Steve McIntyre Attention has been drawn today to Mann’s request to other Team members for suggestions as to how to take direct action at Harvard against Soon and Baliunas. Not noticed thus far is that Kevin … Continue reading →

Posted in Climategate | Tagged , , , , , , , | 34 Comments

A response from Chris de Freitas

Posted on November 28, 2011 by

In the post: The tribalistic corruption of peer review – the Chris de Freitas incident Dr.  Chris de Freitas has left a response. Rather than argue his own position. Dr. de Freitas lets the director of the publication Climate Research … Continue reading →

Posted in Climategate | Tagged , , , , , , , | 75 Comments

The BEST whopper ever

Posted on October 30, 2011 by

I was over at Judy Curry’s place, reading her update to the Mail on Sunday story, and noticed she referenced URLs to the updated FAQs at the BEST website. I followed and was totally shocked to read this FAQ: (bold … Continue reading →

Posted in Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature | Tagged , , , , | 94 Comments

Nature pans BEST and Muller PR antics, prints letter from Dr. Singer

Posted on October 27, 2011 by

Scientific climate Nature 478, 428 (27 October 2011) doi:10.1038/478428a Published online 26 October 2011 Results confirming climate change are welcome, even when released before peer review. excerpts: … Of course, reproduction of existing results is a valid contribution, and the … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 77 Comments

My thanks to Mike Roddy for helping with BEST review

Posted on October 22, 2011 by

Eh, even when I try to get away from it on weekends it follows me via email. But, I decided I’d take a moment to post this comment from Joe Romm’s Climate Progress somebody sent me that popped up on … Continue reading →

Posted in Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, Climate ugliness, Humor, Satire | Tagged , , , , | 92 Comments

Weekend open thread

Posted on October 22, 2011 by

I’ll be offline most of this weekend, as I got virtually no work done for myself this week thanks to the BEST “PR before peer review shenanigans” and the compliant cadre of barking media lapdogs that followed with tails-a-wagging looking … Continue reading →

Posted in Open Thread | Tagged | 255 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

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

New peer reviewed paper: clouds have large negative cooling effect on Earth’s radiation budget

Posted on September 20, 2011 by

Oh dear, now we have three peer reviewed papers (Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell, and now Richard P. Allan) based on observations that show a net negative feedback for clouds, and a strong one at that. What will Trenberth … Continue reading →

Posted in clouds, Spencer-Braswell and Dessler | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 315 Comments