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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One wonders, after all the stunts and clear intention to deceive some of the CAGW brigade have pulled – especially with ‘redefining the peer review process’ – exactly how many potentially hostile reviewers are you going to invite to review your work?
A very sad and unfortunately inevitable state of affairs, but at least there is no indication of intention to reject other scientists work, or get editors sacked because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Sadly the issue has become how it is perceived rather than the science.
I am seeing a trend with certain PRP supporters lack of fact checking and obsession with strawman arguments. One of the papers was already critiqued,
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/91/2013/prp-1-91-2013.html
And thanks to an easily criticized peer-review process no one is going to waste time now discussing the scientific merits of the papers! It is absolutely maddening why PRP supporters do not comprehend this.
Oh and for the sake of my inbox, I am well aware Dr. Scafetta rebutted this critique (http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/105/2013/prp-1-105-2013.html) and I am not supporting any scientific argument here nor do I have any interest in debating the science in these papers at this time. (lets see how many read this last paragraph)
It’s all a bit ‘ Mickey Rooney & Judy Garland’; “why don’t we publish our own peer reviewed journal and pick our own reviewers”.
The sad thing is that they could have done it all properly, followed Moshers advice and demanded turn-key code and data. They could have even have had open pre-Review so that the final product was superior to the draft.
Why should Anthony have to defend the act of others? Why should I? Why should any sceptic?
Nothing to see here (as per Gavin Schmidt style Climategate) move along folks. It really is over – the journal – and a good thing it is. Next…………………….
[Thinking in mind: what IF they are right???]
The above post by Anthony is a complete nonsense. The only way to question the peer review process is to find evident error in the science discussed in the papers. Discussing the science is not what Anthony is doing.
I have written a full comment on on the Copernicus affair on
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/19/scientists-react-sharply-to-copernicus-publishing-censorship-of-alternative-scientific-explanations-do-you-realize-what-you-have-done/
About Anthony, I have a question for him. Tell me Anthony, do you think that Leif could serve as a fair peer reviewer for my papers, or do you think that he should refrain from peer reviewing my papers because of his personal hostility demonstrated in this site many times?
Please respond my question.
REPLY: Unfortunately, like Roger Tattersall, I see you have no shame, and won’t apologize for having a hand in creating this mess. Sorry Nicola, I’m not going to get wrapped up in your never ending pointless commentary which always ends in everybody else being wrong but you, like with that other journal issue you had. This will be the last time I respond to you.
Feel free to be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
“If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.”
― Sun Tzu
“Ponder and deliberate before you make a move.”
― Sun Tzu
“Foreknowledge cannot be gotten from ghosts and spirits, cannot be had by analogy, cannot be found out by calculation. It must be obtained from people, people who know the conditions of the enemy.”
― Sun Tzu
“Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.”
― Sun Tzu
——————————————-
And when you catch a mistake in your own work, be glad (pride be damned).
At least it wasn’t someone else that caught it, and nobody got hurt.
Just a couple of questions from somebody with no background:
1. I expect that when you submit an article to a journal, the pub date is unknown. If so, then how would any reviewer know they also would be an author in the same edition? Or, if you ever have or hope to publish in that journal, does that disqualify you as a reviewer?
2. My understanding is that alarmists tend to shun skeptic journals. How then can a skeptic journal get a non-skeptic reviewer? Do we know who was asked to review? Why is it wrong to have a skeptic review a skeptic?
3. This sounds like an area with a limited number of people with requisite expertise. How likely would it be for a reviewer to not be very familiar with an author?
I haven’t read the articles, so I don’t know the merits of the claims made. I’m just trying to understand the issue better.
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 4:49 pm
Gosh, I’d love to do exactly that, Rog … but I’m banned from posting at your website. You didn’t like my scientific views, so you made me an un-person in the best tradition. And that censorship says something about the “scientific content” of your work.
w.
REPLY: No, you have it wrong, I still support those things, the problem here is that those folks asked to play in the peer review sandbox, didn’t abide by the rules of the sandbox, and then it exploded all over everybody when called out. – Anthony
Actually Anthony, they did abide by the rules of the sandbox – get people who you know to review your work – those are the rules of the sandbox as they actually are. The authors of this article also decided (quite rightly) to play outside of the sandbox by making their entire work available to all, freely.
The questions asked by Bob Shapiro at January 19 at 5:19pm are very relevant and also go to the heart of the matter.
Hi Anthony, It’s very important to denounce pal review, as you do, but I think your thrust is mistaken. The journal was cancelled within 24 hours. That cannot come from a proper consideration of the pal review problem: if it was already known, the proprietors should have raised the issue earlier, or if only just discovered, time should have been taken to investigate properly. No, the reason for cancellation – regardless of the merits of the pal review issue, was exactly what their first attempt at an explanation stated: the conclusions disagreed with the assertions of the IPCC. We should not lose sight of that fact.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 19, 2014 at 5:18 pm
—————————-
Very well said!
Nicola, wheres the data for “The complex planetary synchronization structure
of the solar system”? Seriously.
Why didn’t you include the raw data and the computation, rather than incestuously cite yourself?
It happens that I believe that the suns output is altered by the gravitational tugs from the planets of the solar system, and that you are basically right. However, you do yourself no favors acting like an arrogant Prima donna.
I really struggle to believe that people do this sort of thing out of malice. Typically the problems facing editors are; 1. Obtaining suitable papers in a timely fashion and 2. Ensuring that suitable referees are available to ensure that papers are credibly reviewed and publication deadlines are met. These two factors can put pressure on the editor or editorial board to limit the extent of the peer review, either by a) limiting time for the review, b) sending papers to inappropriate peer reviewers because they are known to be quick responders or c) limiting the number of peer reviewers. I have been involved in journal production on two occasions and the question of Pal review never came up, simply because both the editor and the author wanted the most credible review of their papers. A proper peer review process can also be confidential, so that the Author may not even know who the peer reviewers are.
Equally if, a paper turns out to be incorrect, most Journals I know of, are open to a rebuttal.
[snip – this discussion isn’t about Dr. Svalgaard and other peer reviews. It is about the PRP, so, sorry, I’m not going to let you nor Nicola highjack the thread with by redirecting it on something unrelated, especially when your comment comes from a fake name on a proxy server -Anthony]
UPDATE: further research has proved to me that this comment originated from Geoff Sharp, who put the identical comment at Tall Bloke’s. The only way he could have done that would be if he originated it, since unapproved comments here aren’t visible to others.
Readers might recall Mr. Sharp has been permanently banned from WUWT for policy violations including playing sockpuppetry here. Meanwhile he’s lecturing me about integrity at TB’s. What a desperate clown. – Anthony
Requesting reviews of an article from contributors of related articles, in or outside a special issue, is hardly unusual. It’s the norm – a common practice of editors to obtain needed comments quickly and from those familiar with the subject. How many warmist papers do you think have been reviewed by those of a skeptical persuasion? Take a guess on by whom those papers were reviewed.
Editorial treatment of this issue was neither unique nor noteworthy.
The same cannot be said of the publisher’s reaction to external pressure.
[snip – this essay isn’t about Dr. Svalgaard and any of his peer review, it is about your group of which Dr. Svalgaard is not associated. I won’t let you hijack this thread with something that is nothing more than an attempt to deflect from your own issues with this journal. -Anthony]
A point from the last post. It is ,now recognized that the earlier measurements of TSI were ~3-4 w/m^2 too high because apertures were not properly chosen, allowing excess light to be scattered into the sensor resulting in higher TSI being measured. See the links and figure in the link above. TSI is about 1361 w/m^2 at the earth’s orbit with a variation of about 1 W/m^2
Scafetta continues to use the older, higher, incorrect TSI values (see Fig 9 in his PRP paper). This is not a matter of opinion, but of measurement error. In the words of John McEnroe, he can’t be serious.
Naturally we can expect Copernicus Publishing to apply the same standards across the board. Sorry to see the whole sorid episode come about. Self discipline is usually a favorable attribute of underdogs.
We’ve needed every little edge to get this far.
FWIW, a major issue is that what the editors of PRP think is pattern recognition, has nothing at all to do with serious studies of pattern recognition, in or out of physics.
So we can expect all science journals to be shut down now. Cool.
Nicola Scafetta says:
“The only way to question the peer review process is to find evident error in the science discussed in the papers.”
I would like to ask what you honestly think of your own work, do you fully believe that all your Jupiter-Saturn harmonics and 60yr triads are the correct solution to the solar variations?
This is nthing to do with science but to do with warfare. Divide and Conquer. In this case the good guys are dividing themselves and will be conquered. Why do the better Muslims not criticize the bad Muslims? Why do the moderate Marxists never criticize the far left looney Marxists? Why do the pretend watermelons never criticize the ratbag Watermelons? Why because they learn the first principles of not dividing themselves. Just like the Church divided themselves so will go the way of anti-left movement.
Jeff Alberts says:
January 19, 2014 at 6:12 pm
So we can expect all science journals to be shut down now. Cool.
—————–
That nails it. Reviewing ones own and each others work is actually state of the art of climate science peer review at the IPCC.
I know I have a probably more jaded view of the overall community than some, but there’s an aspect of “someone tried to create a non-corrupt subset of a larger corrupted set” here that is *almost* amusing. I guess in one sense of amusing, anyway.
I don’t have a good answer. There is a point to be made that the result would not have been much different in the end either way, but the “sandbox violation” was certainly not very bright.
Unfortunately, the anticipated obvious response is to destroy rather than repair, because the community did not want the effort in the first place.
The fact that skepticism is a subject of derision in the scientific community is a turn of events that is also somewhat comical.
There is a logic trap here, IMHO. It is the demand to do battle on an asymmetrical field.
“We” must follow their rules of the Geneva Convention even if “they” do not.
There is a reason the Geneva Convention only applies to signatories, and why we DO NOT need to follow it if the other folks don’t sign up and follow it. It assures that the rules are symmetrical to both parties and that it is a ‘fair fight’.
Now it is all well and good to argue for the better more pure method, but, IMHO:
It is essential to know when to “Be the mirror” and reflect the other person’s behaviour.
IF they pull a knife, you may use a knife. If they lie, you may lie. If they use pal review and editor shopping, you can use pal review and editor shopping.
Simply make it clear at each point that you are simply following THEIR lead and THEIR method and that you will ALWAYS be symmetrical in your “rules”. Usually the “crap” level drops rapidly after that…
This is my “Be a mirror” philosophy and I’ve used it for decades. (There’s a bit more to it, but that’s the basics). Generally speaking, it works very well. Nasty people who are abusive and cheat tend to straighten up (or just go away when they realize it’s a level battle field) while for nice folks with polite manners, well, everyone ends up having a jolly good time and liking each other.
It has, in repeated trials, regularly failed to “set a good example” by “doing the right thing and following the rules” when the other guy does not. That just gives an asymmetrical battlefield advantage to them and gets you creamed. They do NOT learn by example, often revel in your stupidity, and rob you blind. It’s a failed method.
Thus the “Be The Mirror” method.
FWIW, I do think it must be coupled with a generally sound moral compass, so that you EXIT “their rules” and return to “moral rules” at the first opportunity. (Much as one must use Geneva Convention rules once the other guy signs up and starts following them.) I also think it is a very good idea to periodically run a ‘test case’ of raising the morality level to see if they are ready to “slow walk” back to good behaviour.
But I’ve also learned from many and painful experiences that expecting the morally bankrupt to learn from your good example just gets both cheeks slapped and your pocket picked. Evil is, unfortunately, rarely beaten by good intentions and an asymmetrical set of rules of battle. It is often beaten when met head on in a direct Reflective Game.
So all those “nice nice talk” bits about the moral high ground just sound like so much hypothetical lip flapping to me. They use Pal Review and Editor “shopping”; then so ought we until such time as THEY agree to give up the tactic and return to civil behaviour. Just always stay just a little bit closer to the “white hat” side than they are so it is clear who is most out of bounds.
Generally speaking, once the other side realizes you are onto their games, willing to play it against them, AND that you publicly state that’s what’s going on; they start a slow walk back to civility… and if not, you now have the level battle field where the right and moral side can win.