Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook – making things up

What we appear to have is a Cook working to a recipe complied by a psychiatrist with a schizophrenic tendency.
Hallucination and indigestion being the designed take home experience.

foxgoose, I wouldn’t be so sure this was intentional. People with large biases are very good at misreading things. They’re also very good at forgetting inconvenient facts. Bias and incompetence can cause a great deal of apparently dishonest behavior.
In this case, I suspect someone saw your comment out of context and didn’t bother to look at the discussion around it. They jumped to a conclusion, liked what they thought they saw, and they decided to include it in the paper. Laziness, bias and incompetence explains things just fine.
It’s still a case of academic misconduct, but it most likely wasn’t intentional.

In light of the extremely unusual “music chairs” going on with the listed peer reviewers, a look at who these reviewers are would seem a logical exercise. Of course the authors would call that reasoned review yet another conspiracy theory – but lets go ahead anyway.
On the the “Recursive” paper’s title page of the original PDF is this prominently highlighted comment from the authors:

“This Provisional PDF corresponds to the article as it appeared upon acceptance, after rigorous peer-review.”

The authors clearly state the paper had undergone “rigorous peer review” prior to acceptance. Yet as we know, the listed peer reviewers have undergone 4 different iterations after publication – multiple different variations of listed peer reviewers.
This is highly unusual – and in my personal opinion high unprofessional. It goes directly against the entire premise of rigorous peer review. And it becomes worse when one of the remaining peer reviewers has every appearance of outright “pal review” … and the 2nd remaining reviewer listed when the music stopped, is the responsible editor of the paper.
So lets look at additional facts regarding the various peer reviewers listed and the Recursive and LOG12 papers themselves.

1. Each of the original two listed peer reviewers of the Recursive also received cites to their own work in the references for this paper. Not necessarily an issue in itself, however, when taken as part of the whole – it at least seems worth scrutiny.
2. It is highly unusual that a paper will see any changes to the listed peer reviewers after publication … a single change is rare, let alone 3 different changes with 4 different reviewers listed, in a short period. There is little logical or legitimate reason to have a change of listed peer reviewers after publication. Both because peer reviewers can not change once review is complete, and because the journals own rules provide that reviewers are not identified until the paper is complete, signed off on by Editor, and accepted by the journal for publication.
The only acceptable reason a listed reviewer might change after publication is to correct a simple error – that somehow the wrong individual was listed. We know that was not the case here, for several reasons. Both initial reviewers are listed as a reference in the paper, so we know both are involved. And we know it was not a simple mistake, as the listed reviewers have changed three different times.
3. After Michael Wood was removed (who seemed fairly well qualified) as a reviewer, and Mr. Viren Swami was added in his place, for a short period a 3rd peer reviewer – Ms. Prathiba Natesan, University North Texas was added to the reviewer list. As a teacher of psychological statistics Dr. Natesan appears to have been well qualified – especially to review the underlying LOG12 work for accuracy. A brief review shows no appearance of bias or strong advocacy.
Unfortunately Ms. Nateson was soon removed as well, leaving the one original reviewer – the highly sympathetic journalism student Ms. McKewon – and the Editor, Dr. Swami. While Dr. Swami would likely be well qualified as a peer reviewer, it seems highly problematic and unethical for an Editor to also be a peer reviewer on a paper they are responsible for Editorial control over.

The myriad of changes, post publication, of the listed peer reviewers is no simple mistake. This was clearly no mere typographical error. You don’t get the listed peer reviewers for a paper wrong three different times after publication.
Add the fact the PDF of the paper has been pulled from the journal and the authors websites.
Now take the inconsistencies and problems apparent with this current paper, and add the context of the issues with the LOG12 paper:

– The early release to mainstream media of a flawed paper with a highly sensationalized inflammatory title – a title attacked and vilified by even strong supporters of the authors
– A title that reflected a minor finding of the research, a finding barely supported by the data, and which all but disappeared when the suspect responses were removed
– The strong and relevant issues with the authors data collection practices and the resultant very small sample of alleged “skeptic” responses
– Despite repeated claims from the authors that the answers could be found in the Supplemental information – no SI has ever been provided and they continue to ignore all such requests
– Despite the authors continued claims – including cites in their subsequent papers – now 9 months after the authors initial claim, the LOG12 paper has still not, been published, and to my knowledge there has been no independent public confirmation or announcement that it has been accepted for publication

So we have one paper – LOG12 – which has serious questions about its data collection, data quality, statistical analysis and conclusions … and which has to date primarily been used for advocacy/attack thru its release to the media by the authors. A paper that has never been published, nor even acknowledged to be accepted for publication, despite repeated and continued claims by the authors it was “In Press.”
And now we have a new paper, which cites as a reference, and is directly based on, the unpublished and unverified LOG12 paper, with its serious and unaddressed questions as to quality and accuracy … and this new paper has similar issues, including outright false claims about other authors work. A paper where legitimate concerns have been raised as well – about peer review, falsely citing several references/sources, incorrectly stating conclusions etc..
These are fair and legitimate questions and criticisms – based on fact. Perhaps there are simple answers, however, as is now seemingly becoming a pattern with these authors and this line of work, there are no answers forthcoming.
There is no conspiracy theory, nor is one needed. They are valid, legitimate questions. The authors have refused to address them here, just as they refused to address questions about the LOG12 paper …
This is in my opinion not the mark of professional scholarly work and/or ethical and open authors. Their own actions lend support to the claims this is not scholarly work, but rather an extension of the authors practice of “Punitive Psychology” thru their extreme advocacy and activism in support of their “Cause”.
Last – It is not a ‘conspiracy’ to ask authors to respond to legitimate criticism and questions. It is not ‘conspiracy’ to expect authors to provide the necessary support and documentation to validate and verify their work. Nor is it ‘conspiracy’ to attempt to validate and verify their work and its review…

Brandon Shollenberger says:
March 9, 2013 at 5:07 pm
I don’t get why people would think this sort of thing is intentional. Why would Cook and Lewandowsky intentionally fabricate quotes in such an obvious way? Fabricating quotes only serves a purpose if people believe those quotes. If people reading this paper followed the links in it, they’d see the fabrications. It takes no special skills or in-depth research.

Brandon, do you think Mann’s abuse of statistics in so many of his paleo papers was unintentional? I think it more likely that Mann (along with Lew and Cook), wouldn’t expect anyone but Skeptics to object. Much like we saw in the CRU emails, the only objections by compatriots were in private. The know that the objections by skeptics would be ignored by the MSM, and therefore the public at large.
I don’t know if all of the LewCookian missteps were intentional, but you have to believe that some of them were.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about cognitive psychology than Stephan Lewandowsky has proved to be should write up an article or case study on this sordid affair, analyzing cognitive biases and failings in relation to such general concepts as:
Group think
Confirmation bias
Cognitive distortion
Noble cause corruption
Plus related more specific and technical terms in the psychology literature.

Jeff Alberts:

Brandon, do you think Mann’s abuse of statistics in so many of his paleo papers was unintentional?

Definitely. I don’t think he has the knowledge or skill for the work he tried to do. He has never done anything to indicate otherwise, and he’s done much to indicate it. I challenge anyone to find anything he has ever written that inspires confidence in his abilities.

A closer read will show Lewandowsky actually set up the current “Recursive” paper in a way that allows them to ignore the factual basis and/or truthfulness of any claim. Its not a conspiracy theory if its true – except in Lewndowskys world of activism and advocacy based ‘Punitive Psychology.’

Chris B says:
March 9, 2013 at 9:05 pm
This song reminds me of what Dr. Lew’s work is to science.
_______________________________________
The illuminati made me do it……….

Geoff, I believe it was Cook’s other pal Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (“Barrier Reef doomed”) who’d had a lot to do with that appointment…

Was waiting outside the GCI boardroom, the door opened, Ove came out and said, trying to lighten the mood, “come in for your execution”. Uh, thanks, Ove! So I started my PPT explaining what I hoped to do in the role. Was surprisingly relaxed (but still quite psyched about it all). I quoted a CSIRO scientist who at a communication workshop said “to get the climate message across, we need to make climate science cool… Like what skeptical science is doing”. This got a good reaction. Then to show an example of what I’d like to do, I handed out my iPad with The Elements app (with carbon as the selected element). You should’ve seen their eyes light up. Ove asked the name of the app and scribbled down the name in his notes. Then at one point, I also handed out my iPod with the SkS app (joking about all my props). I mentioned that Malcolm Turnbull had the SkS app (thanks James) which also lit up their eyes.
So the talk went well. Then they asked questions. One question was how I’d handle interdisciplinary matters with experts from different fields disagreeing about issues, how I’d resolve differences. I tried to think of examples in the SkS community where there were disputes but I couldn’t think of anything substantial. You lot just get on together too well!
They asked what would I consider successful in my job after 3 years. I said if Australia still had a price on carbon in 3 years, I’d consider that a success (that would require a major turning of public opinion about carbon pricing in this country, which will probably be my main purpose for the next year or two).
Ove also asked what my career plans were, where I hoped to be in 10 years. I had expected this kind of question but to be honest, I have no career plans – probably a huge faux pas in a job interview but I have no ambition other than making a difference. So maybe that was a bad answer (a bit sappy really, something you’d say in a Disney movie).
Anyway, they said they’d be deciding the position at the end of the day and I went home, pretty satisfied that I got through it without walking into any furniture or drooling down my chin.
At the end of the day, I got a phone call from GCI. They said they had 3 interviews. The other two applicants “were quite strong”. Then they offered me the job.

In fairness to JC when you glance over the job description he does seem to have it nailed. Why that position needs to exist is another debate to be had…