After reconsideration of my original story, I find that there is more than enough blame to go around on both sides and that there were warning signs that were ignored.
Last Friday while at work, my Inbox exploded with news about a “climate skeptic journal getting canceled”. It was news to me, because I didn’t even know there was one in existence. This post is an update that post I made on Friday: The ‘planetary tidal influence on climate’ fiasco: strong armed science tactics are overkill, due process would work better. Today’s post is done with the benefit of more detailed information and more time than I had then.
Much of the mail I received Friday centered around this post by Jo Nova: Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated!
Jo’s post details that a particular phrase in the announcement seemed to be the reason for the termination of the journal. The editor’s announcement (the first version) is reproduced below, bold, Jo’s:
Termination of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics
Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus’ attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.
Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”. Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).
Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.
We at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.
Interested scientists can reach the online library at: www.pattern-recogn-phys.net
Martin Rasmussen
January 2014
Initially, this looked like another case of suppression due to the anti-IPCC message conveyed in the PRP Special Edition, much like we’ve seen in Climategate where an email campaign was used to pressure editors, and if the editors didn’t kowtow, “the team” would work to remove them. The Phil Jones email “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow” immediately sprang to mind.
My view was that the journal editor got “team” pressure, such as we witnessed James Annan crowing about, and they caved.
Kudos to Copernicus for the rapid and decisive way in which they dealt with this problem. The problems at the journal were was first brought to my attention by ThingsBreak just last night, I emailed various people to express my concerns and the journal (which was already under close scrutiny by the publisher) was closed down within 24h.
I pointed out that the best way is to let due process take its course:
While the shutdown of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics that published a special edition on planetary tidal influence on climate is likely a bit of overkill, rebuttals would have been the right way to handle it rather than the Climategate style strong-arm gang tactics exhibited against journal editors…
But then later, after my piece was published, I learned there was far more to the story, and that Copernicus had changed their statement, adding this paragraph:
“In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.”
That seems like some post facto CYA to me, or, it could also be just sloppiness due to what appears to be the “panic” they were under after getting hit with an email campaign from James Annan’s “various people”.
Jo wondered in her update:
Copernicus is a large publishing group which also publishes many other journals. I wonder if “nepotism” is the word for pal-review which occurs all the time…
It turns out that “pal-review” was indeed a problem, and that both sides should have seen this showdown coming well in advance. Had either made some effort to head it off, you wouldn’t be reading about it now.
First, let me say that it takes a lot of courage and effort to put together a special edition for a journal, and I admire the people involved for doing that, even though I disagree with much of what was presented.
Secondly, it takes a lot of work to do it right. Doing it right means getting it done where any contestable items of special interest, pal-review, and other biases aren’t part of the publication. That’s where it went wrong.
Third, if the climate skeptic community became aware of a pal-review issue like this in climate science, we’d be all over it. We should hold our own community to the same standards.
In his post about the affair, Roger Tattersall, who was both an editor and an author of a paper in the special edition, responded to William Connolley in this comment with a [Reply].
William Connolley says:
“In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing…”
Oooh you bad boys. RT: are you in favour of nepotism in review? Come on, don’t be shy.
[Reply] I asked for reviewers from outside our discipline, but with it being a small field, there was crossover. But because the papers are open access, anyone can download, review and comment, so I don’t think it’s a big problem. Let our scientific work stand on its merit, rather than impugning the honesty of the scientists.
Climate science itself suffers from the small field crossover problem to an extent, but as we saw in Climategate emails, often they turn a blind eye to it.
I have no problem with their work in the PRP Special Edition standing or failing on its own merit, but I do have a problem with the way they went about this. For example, in WUWT comments we have:
People are missing the key point,
http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/
“…the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.”
http://publications.copernicus.org/for_reviewers/obligations_for_referees.html
“4. A referee should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the referee’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the referee should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
5. A referee should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the referee has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.”
The problem is obvious, the papers list in many cases one of the reviewers as an author in the same edition and in some cases a known skeptic. While this is no different than what alarmists do all the time, skeptics will be held to a much higher standard and should not allow themselves to fall into these traps.
This makes what would be a clear censorship argument irrelevant.
Basically, they asked to play in the peer reviewed sandbox at Copernicus, then didn’t abide by the rules of the sandbox for peer review. That was the recipe for disaster everybody should have seen coming.
Which is confirmed:
Poptech says:January 18, 2014 at 3:56 pm
tallbloke says:
I’m surprised Poptech fell for the Rasmussen ruse. In his first email to the editors he said he was shutting down PRP because it had allowed sceptics to publish heresy about the IPCC dogma. Only later did he realise the own goal and cook up the unsubstantiated smears about “potential” issues with review.
With the original version I agree with you and on these grounds alone I consider this censorship but that is not the whole story.
My problem is with the process of using authors, editors and known skeptics as reviewers. This is not an unsubstantiated smear but verifiable,
Here are two examples:
Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming
“Reviewed by: N.-A. Morner and one anonymous referee”
Dr. Morner is qualified to review this paper but he is an editor and a known skeptic with a potential conflict of interest in that he is sympathetic to Dr. Scafetta’s arguments.
The Hum: log-normal distribution and planetary–solar resonance
“Reviewed by: H. Jelbring and one anonymous referee”
Hans Jelbring is again qualified but an author in this edition and a known skeptic with a potential conflict of interest in that he is sympathetic to your arguments.
And the reason I am told they published their names, was because they were concerned with having a conflict of interest! Thus, by the publishers own rules they should not be reviewing these papers. The saving grace is that one of the reviewers was anonymous but this is still going to lead to wild speculation for many reasons, especially since the editors were skeptics.
Why give alarmists the ammunition of Pal-Review? I don’t understand this.
Regardless, unless the papers get retracted I will list them, so people can read them and make up their own minds, but I will not be endorsing them nor defending the review process.
One of the PRP editors, Morner, published his own paper in the edition. The other editor reviewed it. And, Morner reviewed other papers. No clearer example of circular review exists.
And then there’s this:
richardscourtney says: January 18, 2014 at 9:04 am
Friends:
I withdraw the suggestions in my earlier post at January 18, 2014 at 1:58 am.
When I made that post I was not aware that the journal used the same people as authors and reviewers for the papers of each other in a Special Edition on a stated subject. Such a practice is a clear example of pal-review.
The Special Edition should not have been published when its peer review procedures were a clear malpractice. Whether the reasons for withdrawal of the Special Edition also warranted closure of the journal requires additional information but it seems likely.
And so, the perception of the pal-review has trumped any science that was presented, and few people will hear of the reasons behind that problem.
The problem the PRP authors and editors have is existence in a small like-minded universe, yet they don’t see the problem that presents to outsiders looking in. The situation reminded me of a Star Trek TNG episode “Remember Me“ where Dr. Beverly Crusher gets trapped in a “static warp bubble”. The pool of people she interacts with keeps shrinking as the bubble shrinks, and she keeps trying to convince the remaining people of this fact while they look at her like she’s crazy. She finally ends up alone, and doesn’t realize the reality of her isolation until she asks the ship’s computer “What is the nature of the universe?” and it answers:
“…the universe as a spheroid structure 705 meters in diameter.”
That’s about the size of the PRP Special Edition universe, and like the static warp bubble in the TNG episode, it is collapsing in on itself. The big problem with this event is that while that PRP Special Edition universe is collapsing in one place, it has exploded elsewhere, and that explosion has painted all climate skeptics with a broad brush.
Some news coverage of the event:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/01/18/0036252/alleging-malpractice-with-climate-skeptic-papers-publisher-kills-journal
It was easy to predict what kind of coverage we’d see.
Note there’s no distinction here of a “subset” of climate skeptics, or even “a few climate skeptics”, no, ALL climate skeptics are being painted with this fiasco. That means people like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, the Pielkes, Curry, Singer, Happer, and many others are being lumped into this even though they had nothing to do with it. I doubt any of them even knew about it, and I daresay that if they did, they’d have similar objections to what has already been voiced on WUWT about the process.
And that, makes me upset. What makes me even more upset is that this mess was wholly preventable if either Copernicus or the PRP Special Edition group had realized what was at stake and done something about it before it became the next target of “the team” looking to pressure an editor like we saw in Climategate. Had I known about it before it exploded. I certainly would have voiced objections about the use of a small and specialized universe of editors and reviewers. Almost any reasonable person looking at this from the outside can see this pal-review issue would eventually blow up, because no matter how careful they might have been internally to prevent such issues, the appearance from the outside of bias is what gets written about, as we’ve seen.
And, there were clear warnings.
Steve Mosher writes to me with this
A while back I happened upon the Tallbloke journal (comments from Tallbloke’s Talkshop)
Steven Mosher says:
cool. not only did you review each other papers ( where the reviewer had the ethical courage to identify himself) but you referenced your own papers that were simultaneously submitted but un published.
wow, way better than the CRU scams.
Of course Ian wilson chimed in
when he knew what I said was true
more
Steven Mosher says: (bold mine)
“Ian:Three years ago at Lisbon, Mosh told me I needed to provide some numbers to back up our solar-planetary hypothesis. Now we are able to do that, he’s falling back on insult by comparing us to people who bent data and stats methods, intimidated journal editors, removed adverse data, hid sample sizes etc.
It’s standard fare from the people who have lost the plot on what the scientific method is. They play the man rather than the ball, because their threadbare theory has failed.”
No Rog, I’m hold [sic] you to the same standard that we hold mann [sic] and others to.
1. Your [sic] the editor of a journal and you publish your own papers. In the climategatemails we found similar problems; we found authors who selected journals because they had a guy on the inside.
Second, we complained because IPCC chapter authors were referring to their own work. Self interest. I can hardly complain about this practice WRT the IPCC and Mann and then let you slide simply because you are a friend. Further, when I was asked for a list of journals to submit to I eliminated all journals where our authors served as editors or as emeritus editors.
2. We complained about climate scientists citing papers that had not yet been published. Look through your references you’ll find the examples. Again, integrity. And yes, you’ll note for example that our AMO paper ( that confirms some of scaffettas work) was held back from publication until all the other papers it cites were published. To do otherwise is to build a house on quicksand.
3. I missed your policy on archiving data and code. I did note some people giving links as references. Sad. bare minimum would be link with the date accessed.
Finally, I looked for your numbers. they are still missing. At a minimum I should be able to go to the SI, get the data and run the code to make sure that the charts presented actually come from the method described.
Since you’re the editor perhaps you tell us how you plan to practice the things we agreed on long ago. Don’t feel bad, folks who think its not the sun get pissed when I tell them to share data and code.. to basically show their work. But you should not be surprised that I would argue that everybody, not just Mann and Jones, should aim for reproducable research. I’ve been advocating it since 2007. Why would I listen to any special pleading from friends. For example, see my comments in july of 2012 on steve mcintyre’s blog where he and Anthony get an earful from me.
It’s a principle for me.
Did Tattersall or Wilson then do anything about this? It doesn’t seem so, but then again I’m, not privy to what went on behind the scenes, like everybody else, all I can do is look at their universe from the outside and note the clearly evident problems they seem unable or unwilling to see.
And the warnings went back even further, from RetractionWatch:
But scholarly librarian Jeffrey Beall noticed some…patterns in the journal back in
SeptemberJuly:The journal’s editor-in-chief, Sid-Ali Ouadfeul, who works for the Algerian Petroleum Institute, started publishing his research in journal articles around 2010, but he’s only been cited a couple times, not counting his many self-citations.
Co-editor-in-chief Nils-Axel Morner is a noted climate “skeptic” who believes in dowsing (water divining) and believes he has found the “Hong Kong of the [ancient] Greeks” in Sweden, among other things. These beliefs are documented in Wikipedia and The Guardian. Morner has over 125 publications, but pattern recognition does not appear to be among his specialties.
Moreover, speaking of “pattern recognition,” my analysis revealed some self-plagiarism by editor Ouadfeul in the very first paper the journal published, an article he himself co-authored.
Did he ask Copernicus to do something about it? Unknown, but it seems likely they would have been made aware of it. Again Copernicus is a seasoned publisher, they should have solved the problem well before it detonated into the science landscape.
So, in summary:
- While the idea of a special edition is fine, and certainly what science was presented in it should stand or fail on its own and have the opportunity for due process, but now that has been made next to impossible.
- The papers are still available at this link. I urge readers to examine them and draw their own conclusions not only about the science, but about the review and publishing process.
- The public perception problem of pal-review could have been prevented had either the journal itself or the people in the PRP Special Edition universe recognized and corrected the pal-review appearance that their small PRP universe presented to outsiders.
- At multiple blogs, including WUWT and Tallbloke’s Talkshop, some people are now defending the process of pal-review as a “more productive form of collaboration to produce a better result”. I’m sorry, that’s just not only wronger than wrong, it’s FUBAR.
- Copernicus and Rasmussen appeared to be indifferent to the appearance of a pal-review issue until they started to get pressure from “the team” spurred on by James Annan. They panicked, and in their panic, presented a sloppy argument for closure, which had to be revised.
- Knowing of the increasing sea of science journals and choices, Copernicus did what they thought they had to do to protect their brand, but they did it ham-handedly, and invited the Streisand effect.
- Copernicus and Rasmussen aren’t newcomers to this arena, they are considered professionals by the science community. They should have recognized this problem and acted on it long ago. Had they done so, we’d not be reading about it today.
- That said, with warning signs present that we’ve seen before in Climategate, and with the people in the PRP universe aware of those things, they should have been able to see the problem and make corrections themselves. Ideally, they never should have fallen into the trap in the first place.
- When warned about the problem, Tattersall and Wilson should have done something to head it off. They may have, I don’t know, but I see no evidence of it. Likewise it seems almost certain Copernicus/Rasmussen would have been made aware of the problem in July 2013 by Beall, and should have done something if they were aware. If Beall did nothing, he’s culpable.
- The coverage of the affair paints all climate skeptics unfairly, since only a small group of climate skeptics operated within the PRP universe, mostly unknown to the larger body of climate skeptics.
- Skepticism is about asking skillful questions to examine if a claim is true or not. In this affair we have a small group of people who think they have the answer, and they browbeat people who think their answer isn’t accurate or representative. A good skeptic (and scientist) practices doubt, and should embrace criticisms, looking to see where they may have gone wrong.
- This fiasco pretty much dashes any chance of any sort of climate skeptic or citizen science based journal coming into existence, because should such a journal be started, no matter how careful, no matter how exacting, no matter how independent, this fiasco is going to be held up as an example as to why nobody from the larger science community should participate.
It’s a real mess, and instead of apologizing for creating it, what we are seeing from the PRP Special Edition universe is indignant rhetoric because nobody is paying attention to their ideas.
All around, a tragedy, and a wholly preventable one.
Manfred says:
January 20, 2014 at 7:39 pm
That makes no sense at all. If that is the case, then what is the reason for all of the strictures such as the following:
Surely you can’t believe that simply making a decision, no matter what the decision might be, means that the editor has complied with that rule. That doesn’t scan.
w.
[snip – too much derogatory content – you are welcome to try again -mod]
Well, well. Too close to home? Now you show your true colors. What did I say that wasn’t true?
How about this?
Willis, what can I say. You are the biggest pompous xxx that I have ever read. While you are definitely intelligent you also need a big dose of humility.
Same goes for Watts.
As for Poptech, well you’ve pretty much said it all.
Get over it!
JC says:
January 20, 2014 at 9:28 pm
JC, I’ve presented ideas, answered objections, raised issues, clarified terms, discussed the issues, and offered links and citations.
Rather than discuss any of that, your response is to fling verbal feces in all directions and hope something sticks … and it does, just not to me.
If you want to show that I’m wrong, I invite you to quote my words and tell us your objections. At present you are acting like a spoiled child, who thinks his tantrum carries intellectual weight in the adult world.
w.
Anthony, I was referring to this sentence
“It turns out that “pal-review” was indeed a problem, and that both sides should have seen this showdown coming well in advance. Had either made some effort to head it off, you wouldn’t be reading about it now.”
If no one knows who the heck the “anonymous referees” are that statement is a bit premature.
Given the publication was a start-up I would not be surprised if the pool of referees was small. It is the nature of the beast. Just getting enough papers to publish can be darn hard (BTDT) So a small pool would be expected until it made a name for itself. The fact this it has never been screamed about for every single other start up journal makes me wonder why now?
As you said it could be seen in advance and that makes me wonder if it was a set-up. It is not like Nils Mörner isn’t a well known skeptic. It is not like these people do not hire top of the line ‘hired gun strategists’ like Stan Greenberg of Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner. A man who coordinated the strategies for Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, South African president Nelson Mandela and leaders of 60 other countries. And yes “…He is also a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming…. http://www.dl21c.org/fbevent/616
Mud slinging and smears is de rigueur for a guy like Greenberg. Republican pollster Frank Luntz says “Stan Greenberg scares the hell out of me. He doesn’t just have a finger on the people’s pulse; he’s got an IV injected into it. He’s the best.”
Anti-Nils-Axel Mörner Articles:
Skeptical Science – Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html
Nils-Axel Morner | DeSmogBlog http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner
The Carbon Brief: Rising incredulity at the Spectator’s use of dubious sea level claims
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/12/rising-incredulity-at-the-spectator’s-use-of-dubious-sea-level-claims/
@ur momisugly Gail thanks for the clarification.
This journal and the papers in it are small potatoes in the larger climate science scheme of things. I could be wrong, but honestly, I think the idea that this was some sort of “setup” doesn’t jibe with the low profile of the journal and its content. Virtually nobody had heard of it until this incident.
Verbal feces? That’s a good one. You are very good at verbal sparring. But this has nothing to do with your “objections, raised issues, clarified terms, discussed the issues, and offered links and citations”. It has to do with your “opinions”. You are of the opinion that somehow the small minded people that think they know better can make rules that we follow but they don’t. In any event that is meaningless. Science is science, no matter how peer reviewed it is.
I’ll take your silence as an answer.
After reading thru Anthony’s well reasoned comments and the others here, I have to make one point that seems to be getting lost in the tempest. And that is the quality of the science itself, along with the quality of the peer review that was completed.
I can completely agree with the concerns raised about pal-review. I understand and agree with Anthony’s concerns that this provides ammo for warmist’s to try to smear all skeptics.
That said – it seems unfair to lose sight of the science and the quality of the peer review.
To say no skeptic can review a skeptic paper is silly. To say no “sympathetic” scientist can review, or to say an Editor or related author can never review is equally silly IMO … At least considering how extremely often it occurs on the warmist’s side. To a point, peer review can be improved with critical reviewers – challenge is a cornerstone of the scientific method – however, if we get to a point where hostility becomes involved the process breaks down as well.
Again, while I agree with and understand Anthony’s concerns and disappointment it seems we play right into the warmist’s hands by allowing this side issue to over shadow whether the papers and science along with the peer review are legitimate and accurate.
Worse is this focus lets the bigger issue – that within a day the entire journal was terminated – apparently in part due to warmist’s complaints over exactly the same processes they regularly employ themselves!
No one can undertake a legitimate scientific review in 24 hours – let alone one complete enough to justify termination of the entire journal. To me that is a far bigger concern here.
Guam says:
January 20, 2014 at 12:10 pm
” … Firstly, just because I tend to lurk does not make me a non poster, (research is everything) …”
—-l
The term lurking implies not posting on the net. I agree that research is everything.
—-l
“… my opinion whether you like it or not is as valid as anyone else’s.”
—-l
Self-evident and not something I am disputing. Try to avoid those kind of statements. Equally obvious is that once you take it upon yourself to lecture regular posters on style, you become fair game for similar treatment.
—–l
” … Your attitude there is indicative of what I am referring to, inaccurate statements and failure to accept someones view. …”
—–l
Since you saw fit to comment on someone elses style, my comment was on your style, not your views, since I agree with some of them. Learn to read with more comprehension and you might find less “inaccurate” statements.
Before posting, think about what you are trying to achieve, apart fom appearing in print.
—–l
” …What has evolved on this thread has done no one here credit imho. …”
—–l
Some of it is good, some of it is not so good. This is the nature of open discussion in an imperfect world. I am glad to see that you do seem to have a humble opinion. I would not have deduced that from your first post.
—–l
My opinion if you don’t like it move on!
—–l
Your opinion is fine (you don’t get to decide when I move on), but your style is less than impressive. I am awaiting your reply to poptech with interest to see how mature you are and whether you can frame a reasonable argument. Please don’t to feel oblidged to waste your time replying to me, unless you really need my help.
Gail Combs says:
January 20, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Given the publication was a start-up I would not be surprised if the pool of referees was small.
None of the papers were of any technical or specialized sophistication. There would be tens of thousands of physicists capable of being referees.
JC says:
January 20, 2014 at 9:44 pm
JC says:
January 20, 2014 at 10:05 pm
Ah, my friend … I fear I’ve been working in R for the last … mmm … hour and seventeen minutes since I replied to your post, looking at the TAO buoy data.
So I hate to break the sad news to you, JC, but I don’t hang on your every word. I don’t sit by my computer breathlessly awaiting your next post. As a result, I didn’t see either your content-free answer, nor your ultimatum a whole 21 minutes later …
In fact, since to date your stock in trade seems to be insults, and you haven’t raised a single substantial objection to anything, I fear I pay little attention to your posts.
I just found it quite funny that you’d think that 20 minutes after issuing your deathless prose, you can declare someone’s silence as an answer … that’s just too good to pass by.
w.
At negrum, I have said all I need to, if you are happy with attempted character assassination as a discussion format then it speaks volumes for how far things have sunk with this issue, the point is, this place was always better than that, the other side were historically the ones who reduced themselves to the gutter when making their argument, to see posters on here complain about the fact that * pal review” is rightly a tactic that should be left to them and yet devolve to using their most banal of techniques is hypocritical at best.
Interesting you are more concerned at my style than the content of which I complained. I suspect I may not be the only one of the silent majority that finds what took place more than a little tawdry.
All of course imho.
Guam says:
January 20, 2014 at 11:04 pm:
” … character assassination … ”
—-l
Do you feel that this would include terms like muck-raking? I feel that If you can’t take it, you shouldn’t dish it out.
I agree with most of your points on this issue, though I find them overstated. I don’t completely agree with your reading of the whole situation ( I am assuming your research includes the previous post and comments that generated this one).
Still awaiting your reply to the person whose actions you so generously characterised and critcised and who has taken the trouble to mount a defensive argument. Forget about me – it is not worth your time or effort.
Guam says: Let me start by saying poptech please quit with the clear attempt at muckraking and character assassination against tb littered throughout this thread,
If I made a factually untrue statement let me know and I will correct it.
It is demeaning to all of us, the implications of your various posts are clear even to the most myopic of readers.
If people refuse to admit to an irrefutable argument, I will provide enough evidence as is necessary to make my case. You can clearly see me repeatedly stating that I do not want to post more damning evidence but they don’t want to act rational, they want to keep defending an indefensible position. The only implications I am trying to show is a hypocrisy with “pal-review”..
Guam says: Let me start by saying poptech please quit with the clear attempt at muckraking and character assassination against tb littered throughout this thread,
If I made a factually untrue statement let me know and I will correct it.
It is demeaning to all of us, the implications of your various posts are clear even to the most myopic of readers.
If people refuse to admit to an irrefutable argument, I will provide enough evidence as is necessary to make my case. You can clearly see me repeatedly stating that I do not want to post more damning evidence but they don’t want to act rational, they want to keep defending an indefensible position. The only implications I am trying to show is a hypocrisy with “pal-review”..
Poptech, that doesn’t wash you had already won the core argument, I agreed (as I indicated), with the general gist and criticism of the debacle (I am a regular on Tallblokes blog as well, although I seldom post). You had no need to go the “extra mile” all that succeeded in doing was create the impression of “axe grinding” to the detached observer.
The move to hunting down his qualifications was really one step too far.
The average reader on here is fairly smart (it is why most of us find this place). The undesirability of what appears to have occurred was not lost on most of us, the other stuff just makes everyone look bad imho.
lsvalgaard says:
January 20, 2014 at 10:31 pm
None of the papers were of any technical or specialized sophistication. There would be tens of thousands of physicists capable of being referees.
Disagree. To referee a paper requires more than a knowledge of the physical principles involved. It requires familiarity with the literature of a subject – so that the referee can judge:
– Whether or not the work is original.
– Whether or not it makes adequate reference to relevant previous work.
Guam says:
January 20, 2014 at 11:33 pm
—-l
Thank you. I am pleasantly surprised and have much more respect for you.
Are reviewers all to be drawn from a pool of disinterested and neutral experts? Where does this fabulous resource reside? (fabulous – adj. Existing only in fables.
While Prof. Morner has a large number of publications, as far as I can see none of them are on Pattern Recognition (a field of statistics/machine learning), which is a main topic of the journal (the other being the application of those techniques to problems in physics). He is well qualified in one area of physics, oceanography, but that does not make him suitable as an EiC for such a journal and associate editor yes, and EiC, no.
The other editor Prof. Ouadfeul, does have expertise in pattern recognition, but is not a leading figure in the field (which is what EiCs usually are, for the reasons given in my earlier post), according to google scholar his papers are not very highly cited, and most of those citations are self-citations. This is not an slur on Prof. Ouadfeul, we all have to start somewhere, he just isn’t nearly far enough into his career yet to be an EiC. The really sad thing is that this episode may seriously damage his chances of getting an editorship in the future when he has established himself more firmly (I hope he does, and that this experience is educational rather than detrimental).
The real problem with the journal is demonstrated by looking at the papers that were not part of the special issue; of the 10 papers, two were written by Oudfeul and one by Morner. It is generally considered “not the done thing” for an editor to publish their own papers in a journal they edit (it is an obvious conflict of interest – some journals have a specific set of regulations to deal with this, but it is best avoided anyway). This is a strong indication that the journal was in trouble from the outset, because there was insufficient interest from the research community for authors to submit their papers to PRiP, so the editors had to submit some instead to get things going. Of the other eight, one was a paper by Scafetta, which attracted a response from Benestad and a reply from Scafetta. Comments papers are generally an indication of a problem in the quality of the review process, and it is not a good sign for the journal that this should happen in the very first issue. Thus there were only really six papers from external authors and three from the editors, which is not an encouraging ratio.
dikranmarsupial,
What’s your opinion of Michael Mann’s qualifications?
Friends:
The discussion is becoming bizarre. People are trying to talk about any imaginable irrelevance instead of the issue at hand. And the issue is clear; i.e.
The publisher (Copernicus) of a small-circulation peer reviewed journal (PRP) enabled publication of an unusual opinion on cause(s) of climate change by inviting a group of people who espouse that opinion to provide a Special Edition of PRP, but the group flagrantly broke the rules of peer review so the publisher decided to protect its reputation by stopping the Special Edition and discontinuing publication of PRP, and this has resulted in damage to the entire community of climate skeptics.
The clique responsible have no excuse for what they did because there can be no excuse.
There was no compulsion on them to engage in peer reviewed publication: they chose to do it.
If you ‘join the game’ then obey the rules or ‘get sent off the field’. And when in the ‘sin bin’ don’t whinge that some others have got away with committing fouls because ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.
The education and qualifications of those involved are not relevant unless it can be shown that they were illiterate so were incapable of reading the rules. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.
And the personalities of those involved are not relevant in any way.
For example, Nils-Axel Mörner is one of the miscreants: he is one of my friends, he has conducted excellent scientific work on sea-level, and I admire him, but so what? Loyalty does not consist of pretending that an error of behaviour did not happen. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.
The nature and worth of the contents of what would have been in the Special Edition are not relevant. Those contents were not published because the rules of peer review were flagrantly violated. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.
Suggestions of “censorship” are ridiculous. The Special Edition was not published because the rules of peer review were flagrantly violated. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.
The value and purposes of peer review are interesting and worthy of discussion but they are not relevant to this debate. If people don’t like peer review then they don’t have to use it but can publish their ideas elsewhere; e.g. on a blog. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.
It is also not relevant that overvaluation of peer review has increased the publication of scientific dross. Academia has adopted the practice of considering number of peer reviewed publications as being an indication of an academic’s work, but quantity is not quality and this practice has increased the publication of rubbish which obscures published gems. But again, in the context of this discussion, so what? The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.
And the resulting discredit for the miscreants’ actions has not been constrained to them. It has enabled climate-alarmists to smear all AGW-skeptics as being like the handful of miscreants. This is extremely hypocritical because the alarmists have a long record of doing what the miscreants did and worse while being applauded for it by their supporters. But so what? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules. The reputation of all AGW-skeptics has been damaged by it. And this thread has not provided any indication that the miscreants have any remorse.
Richard
“The reputation of all AGW-skeptics has been damaged by it. ”
Not in my opinion, if that is any consolation, errors made by indivuduals belong with those individuals.
“Sandbox” is the right word for all this “peer review” and “pal review” shameful nonsense.
Publish your ideas openly, then wait for others to take them apart and see if you are wrong.
Everything else, including degrees and titles, is just a squabble in the qeue to the feeding trough.
I would like to go on the record here as agreeing with Anthony. Even though Pal review is rife on the other side, we cannot afford to play by these rules. In order to be able to call out Pal review for what it is, we need to rise above it. If anything, I’d like to see broader reviews. Given that this was a new Journal and has a limited list of reviewers, I think the overlap was understandable, however I also think it was a mistake.
Still, I would have counseled the Editors on the publication rules and helped with compilation of a more extensive reviewer list, rather than just cancelling it.
Brian H says: @ur momisugly January 21, 2014 at 12:24 am
Are reviewers all to be drawn from a pool of disinterested and neutral experts? Where does this fabulous resource reside? (fabulous – adj. Existing only in fables.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Disinterested?? “Science advances one funeral at a time.” ~ Max Planck
I am reminded of the lady who was turned down for a job in a doctor’s office because she did not have a ‘Certificate” stating she had been ‘Trained” on the medical equipment she had invented. (Note it was her signature on the certs.!) Of another professor with only a masters teaching phd students in the field he invented. When a bureaucrat raised a fuss because he was “Un-qualified to teach because he did not have a phd in the field” his answer was “But who will examine me, my students?”