The row over the issue of Antarctica warming continues. After a number of articles appeared at the Air Vent, Lucia’s, and Climate Audit, Dr. Steig responds at RealClimate with some accusations of his own. I offered Dr. Steig a guest post here, with no caveats, so that he could get maximum exposure, twice. He didn’t bother to respond.
This whole incident illustrates exactly why authors of competing scientific papers should not be reviewers of other papers critical of their own. This failure of peer review falls squarely into the lap of the Journal of Climate for allowing such nonsense in the first place.
But IMHO, Dr. Steig bears responsibility too, he should have said “no”, realizing what a conflict of interest this was.
He confirms in the latest RealClimate essay that he was in fact “Reviewer A”. He also complains that he wasn’t allowed to see the final draft. This is due to the fact that JoC had to bring in another reviewer to break the 88 page log jam created by “Reviewer A”.
The analysis of the difference between the 3rd and 4th (final) drafts at Climate Audit reveal this:
MrPete
Posted Feb 9, 2011 at 10:06 PM | PermalinkHere is a comparison of Rev 3 and Rev 4. All text changes are marked up — including totally minor changes. I hope this works for the reader. (Personally, I would primarily trust this to provide pointers to areas of change as it is not obvious how to reliably discern exactly what the old/new text was.)
To my admittedly inexperienced eyes, the changes appear relatively minor.
Perhaps one of the authors can speak authoritatively on a) whether Wm C’s question (about round 4 reviews) has any standing, and b) whether Eric Steig’s disclaimer (based on not having seen these changes) is appropriate.
So it seems Dr. Steig’s complaint is empty, and the situation mostly a result of his own doings. Still it points back to the failure of peer review at JoC. They should not have invited Dr. Steig to be a reviewer in the first place. had they not, this whole ugly row would be non-existent.
At CA, this commenter sums it up pretty well:
movielib
Posted Feb 9, 2011 at 5:03 PM | PermalinkEric Steig has replied to Ryan:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/odonnellgate/
There seems to be a lot of arm waving about O’Donnell being wrong about… well, everything.
There is what I’d call a personal attack against “O’Donnell, Condon, and McIntyre,” comparing them unfavorably with such “legitimate, honest commenters” as “Susan Solomon or J. Michael Wallace, or, for that matter, Gavin Schmidt or Mike Mann or myself [i.e. Steig].” You see, he thinks people like O’Donnell and McIntyre are not legitimate honest commenters. The compulsory word “deniers” is also thrown in.
Steig claims O’Donnell is going to “retract [his] allegations” against Steig. It’s very vague and I sure don’t know what he’s talking about.
He says he was a reviewer for the first three drafts of the O’Donnell et al. paper but not for the “markedly different” fourth draft so he hadn’t seen it before publication.
Curiously, Steig does not address the point that is the subject of this thread.
I’ll carry ODonnell’s statement here when he completes it, including making whatever changes/retractions he sees fit.
In the meantime, the Journal of Climate editors should probably be made aware of the mess they created by allowing this conflict of interest to occur in the first place.
The bottom line that has been lost in the fog of this war is that Antarctica isn’t warming as much as is claimed, and most of the statistically significant warming is confined to the peninsula.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@AJ Abrams
“Please be current on events before trying smoke and mirror manure here. In the first review Eric strongly recommends that Ryan use iRidge. “
I already quoted the actual recommendation and you’re telling me to get current. Here, again, is the “strong recommendation”:
“Perhaps, as the authors suggest, kgnd should not be used at all, but the results from the ‘iridge’ infilling should be used instead. “
Note the “Perhaps” and the “as the authors” suggest”. “Reviewer A” simply suggested trying something the authors themselves had already suggested – now the authors want to claim it’s all “Reviewer A”‘s fault and that seems reasonable to you?
” Since it was his recommendation as review A, and his praise of the change, his then going on RC and criticizing it was duplicitous. Period.”
Typing “period” after a weak assertion doesn’t make it a strong one.
“It was not relevant that he never saw the final addition of the paper and he knows it.”
It’s entirely relevant when one of the claims supporting “duplicity” is that he asked for something he already had – a copy of the final version. It’s now clear he didn’t have a copy of the final version and it was perfectly reasonable for him to ask for one, not duplicitous at all.
“It was a red herring that you are now chasing because you are too obstinate to look at the actual exchange between the two of them yourself “
If it’s a red herring then it’s O’Donnell’s red herring since he’s the one who introduced it.
As for your claim I haven’t read the exchange – I’m the one quoting from it while you’re the one making assertions about it,
@James Baldwin Sexton
“He insists on a specific method to be in the study (as an anonymous reviewer) and the publicly criticizes the method at RC.”
I’ve already quoted it twice now, if you’re going to rest your claim on the supposed strength of “Reviewer A”‘s recommendation then you have no argument.
Dr. Dave says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:34 am
James Sexton says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:04 am
“Apparently, they have an aversion to statisticians. I beginning to think it involves some cellular response related to IgE. But that’s just a working theory. ”
___________________________________________________________
Pretty funny! Elevated levels of IgE are seen in allergic response or parasitic infections.
They may be allergic to statistical validity or respond to it as a parasitic infection.
======================================================
Heh, I was wondering how many would catch that!!! Well done doc! I was working the allergic to statisticians. Skeptics OTOH, I’d expect the elevated eosoniphils in the smear for the differential.
AJ Abrams says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:29 am
sharper00 says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:10 am
‘Climategate eh? What is it about this incident that reveals a conflict of interest? O’Donnell’s claims of “duplicity” on Steig’s part were simply wrong so what’s left? Please be specific and reference either “Review A”‘s or Steig’s comments.”’
No editor in his right mind would assign as reviewer someone who adamantly believes, and rightly so, that the paper he is reviewing has major negative implications for a paper he has published. How could conflict of interest be more clear?
Steig is duplicitous. Number one, he did not volunteer to O’Donnell that he would be reviewing his submission. That is duplicity. Number two, Steig asked for changes and then criticized the results of those changes. Reviewers should never engage in writing the essay that they are reviewing.
sharper00 says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:22 am
“It would help if you’d explain it – remember the purpose of peer review is to determine if a paper has any obvious flaws. If one paper is a critique of another then what’s exactly is wrong with using the author of the original as one of many reviewers?”
The trolls are in. This comment could be written only by a troll or slipping in and out of consciousness. Anthony should ban them.
Sir, the definition of “conflict of interest” is “accepting an appointment as an impartial judge on a project whose failure is in your interest.” That is exactly what Steig did. He knowingly accepted an appointment as an impartial judge on an essay project whose success would harm his own professional reputation. Sir, Steig’s behavior qualifies him for the title “scum of the earth.”
@Sam Parsons
“No editor in his right mind would assign as reviewer someone who adamantly believes, and rightly so, that the paper he is reviewing has major negative implications for a paper he has published. “
The editor is free to completely disregard everything the reviewer produces if they think it has no basis.
You’re all acting as if Steig was put in control of whether the paper would be published. He wasn’t.
He was asked to review the paper and identify flaws. He did so, the flaws were corrected and the paper was improved. Consequently the published paper was better.
This is somehow being spun as a failure of peer review despite the fact that the original claims this was based on have been shown to be incorrect. Now all we’re left with is some sort of vague “feeling” that there was a “conflict of interest”.
“Number one, he did not volunteer to O’Donnell that he would be reviewing his submission. That is duplicity.”
No it isn’t. There’s no reason at all he would volunteer himself and he was under no obligation to do so. This is a standard of behaviour you’ve simply invented and applied to Steig.
Those interested really should take a look at the rev 3 vs rev 4 document pointed out by Mr. Pete. I’m familiar with both S09 and O10 and it is abundantly clear the changes are inconsequential. The overwhelming majority of changes are simply formatting or a clarification of something that might have been seen as vaguely stated in the text. Most writers forget that readers aren’t as knowledgeable on the subject as themselves, and these types of clarifications are often added by proof readers. If this is all Dr. Steig has he really is grasping at straws.
If there is a single change of any consequence, Dr. Steig should point it out.
sharper00,
Your comment @10:10 above shows that you’re simply trying to run interference for Steig, because there is no way you could have read the link and written your comments only four minutes after I provided the link. And if you’ve read that link before, then you know about the corruption that infests the climate peer review process. Steig’s shenanigans are just more of the same.
@Sam Parsons
“The trolls are in. This comment could be written only by a troll or slipping in and out of consciousness. Anthony should ban them.”
Oh goodness yes! People who disagree with you are trolls who should be banned!
“Sir, the definition of “conflict of interest” is “accepting an appointment as an impartial judge on a project whose failure is in your interest.” That is exactly what Steig did.”
I’ve highlighted the operative word of your definition,
Steig reviewed the paper and submitted his comments to the “judge” i.e. the editor. Steig was not the judge of the process.
Consequently far from being “exactly what Steig did” it’s exactly not what Steig did.
sharper00 says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:22 am
“remember the purpose of peer review is to determine if a paper has any obvious flaws”
Hmm, it seems to me that the “flaws” that reviewer A (supposedly) found weren’t so “obvious” if it took 88 pages to explain them.
@Smokey
“And if you’ve read that link before, then you know about the corruption that infests the climate peer review process.”
Aha! So I’m told by one person I should be quiet until I’ve familiarised myself with events and by another that my familiarity with events is itself suspicious.
“Steig’s shenanigans are just more of the same.”
And yet you’re unable explain how that is.
Adam Gallon says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:20 am
I’ve just left the following comment.
In, Borehole or Oblivion?
__________________________________
Most likely oblivion. Don’t feel bad. Your posts are in the company of many great posts, including most of mine. Oblivion is the only feature better than the “borehole” at the rc website.
@OldOne
“Hmm, it seems to me that the “flaws” that reviewer A (supposedly) found weren’t so “obvious” if it took 88 pages to explain them.”
You can accuse Steig of being overzealous if you like, it’s a matter of opinion. However the issue at hand here is the accusations that the peer review process failed in some sort of (as yet) undescribed manner.
Is the author of the paper being critiqued going to be eager to find flaws with the critique? Of course, it’s human nature. However the determination of whether the flaws he identifies are worthwhile is for the editor to decide.
Therefore I don’t see how asking someone with an interest in finding flaws, to find flaws is somehow a failure of peer review.
sharper00 says:
“And yet you’re unable explain how that is.”
You won’t know, or even understand, until you’ve read Bishop Hill’s account that I posted. To repeat: climate peer review is corrupt, and Steig’s shenanigans are just more of the same.
sharper00 says:
February 10, 2011 at 11:07 am
Consequently far from being “exactly what Steig did” it’s exactly not what Steig did.
_________________________
Ok. Assuming you are partly correct (though wrong in making it “the opposite”), wouldn’t you say that writing 88(!) pages of criticism is a valiant effort to exert some form of influence? I’ve never received more than 5 pages of review on my publications and English is not even my native language. I’d say Steig has probably set some sort of record.
Perhaps the journal editor believed Steig would behave in a more honorable and less partial fashion as a reviewer than he did. After getting an 88-page filibuster in response, he then may have tried to ride it out and hoped his participation could be salvaged. In retrospect he may have hung on to Steig’s participation too long, but did eventually make it better.
Here’s hoping this episode of “As the Climate Turns” will teach editors the dangers of selecting reviewers with too much of a stake in the outcome of a paper. It will require a degree of ‘political’ savvy that I bet is not widely available in the journal editor population.
sharper00 has an ethical blind spot. He says:
“Therefore I don’t see how asking someone with an interest in finding flaws, to find flaws is somehow a failure of peer review.”
It is a clear conflict of interest. The fact that is being done throughout climate peer review is no excuse. Climategate proved conclusively that Mann and his clique have effectively gamed the system to their own advantage.
The more I read sharper00’s comments, the more I suspect he is Steig.
sharper00 says:
February 10, 2011 at 11:04 am
The editor is free to completely disregard everything the reviewer produces if they think it has no basis.
_____________________________
He is apparently also free to disregard good judgement.
The basis? This is a field of science so complex that you could argue that almost anything has no basis as long as you make an effort. They keep confirming every suspicion that arose from the climategate scandal. Luckily they have people like you out there to rationalize every little suspicious piece of information. Mind you, I’m not a “denier”, but a scientist who is furious with the attack on the scientific process “the Team” is responsible for.
@Magnus
“Ok. Assuming you are partly correct (though wrong in making it “the opposite”), wouldn’t you say that writing 88(!) pages of criticism is a valiant effort to exert some form of influence?”
I think it would demonstrate that Steig was quite attached to his paper and overly keen to find flaws with the critique. Calling it “an effort to exert influence” seems quite a stretch since the more obvious he makes his attachment then the less likely the editor is to accept it.
Afraid I’ve lost all faith in institutions like science and peer review and one of my degrees has science in its name.
I have to read a lot of journal articles each week but I now take all of them with a grain of salt.
The CRU climategate scandal showed the fluff piece peer reviews written by The Team on papers that supported them but, as noted in the emails, “went to town” on those they disagreed with and tried everything they could to suppress dissenting perspectives.
The JoC can not be taken seriously when it requested Steig to review the opposing paper – no conflict of interest there.
I have no opinion positive or negative on Eric Steig or Ryan O’Donnell, et al. My comments are that the peer review process itself is utter rubbish at this point and the journals are publishing rubbish. This mess was created by the editor of JoC.
I don’t know sharper00, but I know his type. They quibble and nit-pick and play “Gotcha!” interminably merely to assuage their fragile egos. There is no interest in actual knowledge or information, just who scored the most points off the others. He will continue as long as you give him any attention. Please simply ignore him.
Reading about this got me thinking about the book “A brief history of nearly everything”. It has many stories about corrupt scientists cheating, hindering criticism, and just, in general, breaking ethics in science. I predict that the revised edition in the year 2080 will include a biiig chapter on “Team Hockey Stick”. Steig et al. is no doubt going down in history as important people to learn from – much in the same way we are told to learn from Lysenko and others like him.
Because you can copy and paste what is over at RC does NOT mean you read the reviews, or at the least you are cherry picking
Review 2 from Eric states:
“My recommendation is that the editor insist that results showing the ‘mostly likely’ West
Antarctic trends be shown in place of Figure 3. While the written text does acknowledge
that the rate of warming in West Antarctica is probably greater than shown, it is the
figures that provide the main visual ‘take home message’ that most readers will come
away with. I am not suggesting here that kgnd = 5 will necessarily provide the best
estimate, as I had thought was implied in the earlier version of the text. Perhaps, as the
authors suggest, kgnd should not be used at all, but the results from the ‘iridge’ infilling
should be used instead. The authors state that this “yields similar patterns of change as
shown in Fig. 3, with less intense cooling on Ross, comparable verification statistics and
a statistically significant average West Antarctic trend of 0.11 +/- 0.08 C/decade.” If
that is the case, why not show it? I recognize that these results are relatively new – since
they evidently result from suggestions made in my previous review – but this is not a
compelling reason to leave this ‘future work’.”
Wow…so he insists they show it. “why not show it”. Don’t leave it as “future work” It doesn’t suggest using K_gnd = 5….and then says hey why not show iRidge..he INSISTS a change in what they show in figure 3, then says hey I’m not saying lower K_gnd…maybe they can do iRidge (as the author said would get rid of the K_gnd problem all together.
So smarty..if he insists they replace figure three with something else, but says not to use a different K_gnd number in place of 7, then says hey why not iRidge you mentioned..how on THIS earth is he not insisting on iRidge given he’s given NO OTHER CHOICES here????
It strikes me that Steigs reviewing and his subsequent comments have been deflections away from the nub of the matter – which is that he was in error. No shame in that – it happens – get over it!
@Magnus
“The basis? This is a field of science so complex that you could argue that almost anything has no basis as long as you make an effort. “
Well sure but I think the average journal editor has been around the block a few times and knows the reverse is true too: That no paper is perfect and without flaws. So the issue is really whether the flaws are serious or notable. A reviewer can identify as many flaws as they like but the editor has to make the judgement call on whether fixing them is worthwhile (either because the paper is fine as it is, or the paper is not salvageable)
“Luckily they have people like you out there to rationalize every little suspicious piece of information.”
I think if people are going to level accusations against individuals, publications and institutions they need to be specific and well supported. Hand waving about nebulous unsubstantiated conflict of interest and “Aha! Climategate!” don’t do it for me.