Tag Archives: Peer review

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

About these ads
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

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

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

New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW

From Forbes writer James Taylor: Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in … Continue reading

Posted in 97% consensus | Tagged , , | 124 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

Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper

Tonight, I’m surprised to find that Gleick, who stole documents under a false identity, and then likely forged a fake memo sent to MSM outlets is apparently still on the editorial review board of the Institute of Physics (IOP), Environmental … Continue reading

Posted in 97% consensus, Fakegate | Tagged , , , , , , , | 67 Comments

Quote of the Week – marketing the consensus before it’s ‘97% Cooked’

In the SkS forum discussion about how to create this 97% consensus paper, there was a lot of discussion about how to market it. As far as methodology, quality control, etc. goes, not so much, which just goes to show … Continue reading

Posted in 97% consensus | Tagged , , , , , , , | 59 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

The Collapsing ‘Consensus’

 Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Environmental Research Letters ought to have known better than to publish the latest anti-scientific propaganda paper by John Cook of the dubiously-named Skeptical Science website. Here are just a few of the solecisms … Continue reading

Posted in Consensus | Tagged , , , , , , , | 102 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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Spencer and Braswell story goes viral

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

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

Quote of the Week – rubbishing peer review

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

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

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