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.
I have to support Anthony’s position on this unfortunate matter, as anything less is tantamount to hypocrisy. Having said that, I don’t think the concept of discrete orbits and the potential of planetary synergies influencing solar output merits further consideration. Certainly there are analogs (electron orbits) in Quantom Mechanics and the so called “Spooky Action” of Photons, where Einstein was proven wrong.
If, (as Roger demonstrates in his paper) planetary orbits are closely aligned to Fibronaci intervals, how can we escape the conclusion that there is some semblance of order in the Solar System? With regard to the compounding effects of electromagnetism and gravity vis-a-vis the distance between bodies of matter; certainly, we needn’t search far for analogs in the natural world?
Of course, being right (a big if) doesn’t excuse bad behavior and these fallas behaved very badly indeed. The charges of nepotism have been leveled and nobody has refuted the claim. Would anybody who concluded that each of the authors had exchanged theories prior to the formation of The Journal of Pattern Recognition in Physics be thought a fool? In fact, it would seem the journal was formed for the sole purpose of publishing congruent theories.
Having said that, what if these guys are right?
Bob Shapiro says:
January 19, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Regarding your question #1: Often someone (maybe an editor or a researcher) will suggest a “special issue” and when agreement is reached a process begins whereby calls (e-mails now) are made and time-lines are suggested. For example, Leif-the Sun man, might suggest a future “special issue” whereby the whole scientific community is made aware of what today’s scientists think they know about Sun Spots. He would say the special issue shall be printed, say, in September of 2015. Thus, there is a difference in the process than if you just write a paper and send it to the journal’s editor and she or he starts the process of review and fitting your submission into the monthly, semi-annual, annual (whatever) review and printing of papers.
Hope that helps a little.
Own goal. What a big, big mistake. Thanks for nothing, Tallbloke.
Normally I would agree with Anthony, however as AGW and the IPCC have very little to do with science (just look at the oeer-reviewed garbage that gets published that proclaims CAGW), it is all politics, I suspect there was very little chance any of the articles would have made it past any CAGW and.or IPCC supporter even if the science was good. The journal was shut down NOT because of the science but because of the politics, to think and pretend it was otherwise is naïve.
If this were truly a question of science, I would agree with Anthony… but its not, its politics.
E.M.Smith says:
January 19, 2014 at 6:28 pm
————————————–
Very effective strategy called “tit for tat” and well surported in science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
Typo in my previous post: “I don’t think” in the second sentence should read, “I think”.
E.M.Smith says: @ur momisugly January 19, 2014 at 6:28 pm
There is a logic trap here, IMHO. It is the demand to do battle on an asymmetrical field….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree with you. Well said. Bullies will walk all over nice guys if they let them.
[snip]
On another topic:
Contrary to what you claim, I have no responsibility at all in the Copernicus-Affair. I was not an editor of the journal.
I have simply received an email from Morner in the Summer about the special issue inviting me, as well as many other people, to contribute to the special issue. I thought it a good idea, and I submitted a couple of papers that, for what I know, have been professionally reviewed by specialists in the field and I am happy for the entire handling of my papers. I received very constructive and detailed reviews both by the reviewers and by the editor.
Moreover, please note that my main paper which is also the first paper of the collection
“The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system”
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/1/2014/prp-2-1-2014.pdf
was a simple review of already published papers published on numerous other journals by numerous authors starting with Copernicus and Kepler’s works. So, the topic of every section of it had been already fully peer reviewed at the original journals (which include all most presigious journals beginning with Nature) and/or you can find some of the addressed issues even in every astronomy textbook.
My second paper:
Multiscale comparative spectral analysis of satellite total solar irradiance measurements from 2003 to 2013 reveals a planetary modulation of solar activity and its nonlinear dependence on the 11 yr solar cycle
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/123/2013/prp-1-123-2013.pdf
was an extension of other papers published on other astronomical journals.
I invite the readers to read my papers to verify my claim.
Anthony. There are a lot of people associated with this incident who have graced the pages of this blog with headline posts. I assume we will not be seeing anything from them in the future.
Wrong, those are not the rules of the sandbox,
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.”
Here is more,
http://publications.copernicus.org/for_reviewers/obligations_for_editors.html
“7. Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest if the relationship would bias judgement of the manuscript. Such conflicts may include, but are not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated, and from those in the same institution.”
Anyone intellectually honest cannot argue that having known skeptics reviewing other skeptic’s papers would not be a perceived conflict of interest. Let alone authors and editors in the same special edition.
If you want to check out cycles go to Martin Armstrong’s Blog. Even though he deals with economics all things are cyclical.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/
Go through the archives for December and he has a good post about how everything is connected and especially through cycles. He has 3 basic cycles and the theme that runs through them is the Golden Mean which is the Fibonacci series.
@tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 5:12 pm
Stock standard basic science tallbloke, correlation does not imply causation and what your show at absolute best and I am being very kind is there is a correlation. You don’t show any transfer anywhere in the paper perhaps I missed it but please show me where you measure energy transfer and the details of how that measurement was done and it’s accuracy?
I am sure you believe your theory as do some others but if you want to be taken seriously by any science and I extend this outside climate science you will need to be able to show and measure an energy transfer.
You may want to read and think about the most important paper about this sort of problem it goes under the quirky title “Does the inertia of an object depend upon its energy content?” by Albert Einstein. See how science works …. show the mathematics on the proposed connection and then show you can measure the transfer and the results are in agreement with theory.
I have no objection to an theory but cycle-mania is not science and science doesn’t create shortcuts not even if your name is Albert Einstein. You want me to take your theory seriously show me the mathematics that shows the energy transfer and then show me either an experiment setup and result that shows the transfer or propose how science could do a setup to show and measure the transfer.
Nicola.
We are under no obligation to read your papers or believe them. The obligation is for you to make your case and show your work. You’ve done neither. you have surpassed Michael Mann in his refusal to share code. In the end he was persuaded to show his work. You’ve surpassed his record. In short, we have no obligation to read what you write or to find errors. We can judtifiably assume that everything you say is false until you make your case and show the actual work. Not words describing what you CLAIM you did, but the actual work you did. Not a description in words of what you claimed to do, but code showing what you actually did.
(a)A reviewer would know the publication of the article reviewed and thus know of a potential conflict of interest if said reviewer had submitted an article for publication in said journal not to mention the editors would clearly know. (b)A reviewer would not be disqualified from publishing in a journal where they’ve reviewed a paper. As noted in the article, it was not just reviewers but editors that also published in the journal. An editor of a journal also publishing in it is a huge red flag that may or may not disqualify them from publishing in the journal (the journal’s published policies should be clear on that), but it should at least be handled with kid gloves due to the immediate appearance of preference (one of the points of the article).
(a)Due to the boycott by alarmists of skeptical papers, it may well be difficult if not impossible to have a non-skeptic review a skeptical paper, but the effort should be made and publicly documented if the appearance of pal-review is to be avoided. (b)We know some of the reviewers as they were named in the publication though others were anonymous. (c)While it is not “wrong” to have a skeptic review a skeptic’s paper, it is foreseeable that the alarmist community will leap at the opportunity to cry “nepotism” (as happened). In fact, the skeptic community has on numerous occasions made such accusations of the alarmist community (IMO rightly so).
As noted above, the boycott from alarmists makes the reviewer of technical articles on the subject of climate from a skeptic far more likely to be a skeptic. That does not absolve the publication from publicly addressing the appearance of impropriety (which is one of the main points of the article). The skeptic community has done a very good job of refuting the alarmists both from a scientific standpoint and from a procedural standpoint. On the procedural side, things like pal-review have been one of the more frequent criticisms of alarmists by skeptics. It should therefore come as no surprise that alarmists would use such arguments against skeptics if the opportunity presents. The failure of PRP to follow its own guidelines on peer review virtually assured there would be a controversy. PRP did nothing to address it before it became a controversy by noting publicly the length to which they went to try to avoid the problem, even if they ultimately could not. A quick editor’s note at the beginning of the journal explaining how they tried to get reviewers that would not appear to be biased would have mitigated if not eliminated almost all of the problems this episode has produced. Perhaps better would have been an editor’s note after each article enumerating how many people in what fields were asked to review the article.
Even the title of this article notes that these problems were obvious. I think what many people are missing is that this article, as far as I understand, is about breaking one’s own rules without explanation and doing other actions (like editors of the journal publishing in the journal) that have previously been contested by skeptics when the perpetrators had been alarmists. In such a politically-charged area as climate science, attacks from the other side of the debate should be expected. All parties should take precautions to ensure their work is beyond reproach. To say that the other side “does the same [disreputable] things” is not a justification of the action but a tacit admission of wrongdoing.
I’ll answer this. No, I do not believe he would be entirely objective and completely unbiased (as you two seem to share some animosity towards each other) nor would I choose him to review your papers. With that being said, there are plenty of astrophysicists in the world to review your papers that are not known alarmists (likely hostile) or skeptics (likely sympathetic) that would allow the discussion to focus on your scientific arguments as you clearly intend. (Some of whom even Leif might not have a problem with being an objective third party). There are 10,735 Ph.D. level members of the IAU alone, http://www.iau.org/about/.
REPLY: and let’s leave it at that. Nicola wants to make this thread about Leif Svalgaard rather than the issue at hand. – Anthony
A high school student should be able to do the calculations. (http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast04may_1m/) The effects of anything other than the sun and the moon are miniscule. This looks disgusting on the face of it. As always, if I’m missing something please clue me in.
The problems start with the glorification and idolization of peer-review and journal publication. The orthodoxy feels that dissenting papers and authors ought not to attain such a status so it persecutes and we get such Inquisitors as James Annan and Gavin Schmidt. To attack the perceived source of authority of ‘peer-review’, its critics identify and highlight instances of ‘pal-review’. This perpetrates the notion that pal-review is irredeemably corrupt. If ‘sceptics’ (a technopolitical label for a group of people, if anything) cannot review other ‘sceptics’ papers (one of the arguments presented in the post), the same would hold a thousand-fold for climate scientists. No scientist should be able to publish any paper given that they all obviously agree with each other and are sympathetic to each other. In fact, a field in which a bully like Michael Mann holds important positions with power would shed disagreeing researchers quite rapidly and within the span of ten years or so could reasonably expected to be homogenized and free of any alternative viewpoints. Do we therefore throw out all science that has been published under the banner of ‘climate change’? The accusation of “pal-review” can only take one so far on its own.
“I am sorry, but anyone talking about planetary alignments and planetary gravitational fields affecting the Earth’s climate is talking complete hockey sticks.”
So the moon doesn’t affect tides, and by that in long run climate?
REPLY: The moon isn’t a planet, your question is therefore invalid. – Anthony
“[T]he special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project””
Heresy! But, of course, now the publisher has taken that down, preferring to appear to hold the moral high ground of merely enforcing the sacrosanct rules against pal review, just like Warmist publications always do. HAHAHA!
The reaction over at Jo’s seemed quite over the top, even under the circumstances. When I saw the list of publications, authors, and editors, it looked a little…familial, so I didn’t join in the sport.
If it is wrong to have so-called Skeptic scientists reviewing so-called Skeptic scientists’ papers, why is it ok to have so-called Consensus scientists reviewing fellow Consensus scientists’ papers? “Everyone knows” that 97% of scientists believe in CAGW – that’s a hella lotta pal review! I’ve had my advisor’s former students and collaborators of my advisor review my papers (I have papers published in Copernicus journals, and one aspect of open access is the review process is public, and sometimes reviewers give their names) and yet no one seemed to think anything unethical had taken place. The whole thing smells of politics to me, but I’m also just a lowly grad student in the trenches; I have much to learn it seems.
Shub, I believe there are enough third parties uninterested in the ideological climate debate to choose from for reviewers and are largely untapped. There is also something to be said for perceived hostile reviewers properly handled by an editor, as they are more likely to try and find anything legitimately wrong with the paper.
I thoroughly enjoy the most “hostile” reviews possible of anything I publish as it helps make the work more robust once you separate the valid from the invalid criticisms. I’ve lost count of the number of clarifications and corrections I have made to my own work because of these. The hard part is having a good editor who is able to weed these out from a “hostile” reviewer. A good editor would also seek a second opinion in controversial situations as further insurance.
Poptech says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:01 pm
“…Anyone intellectually honest cannot argue that having known skeptics reviewing other skeptic’s papers would not be a perceived conflict of interest…”
——————–
I think you lost it here.
Very weird and rather offensive.
I think you have an overkill agenda well beyond that case which is rather appalling.
It is the very opposite happening all the time and nobody would argue.
Manfred,
1. Define “pal-review” and do skeptics use this to criticize alarmists?
2. Do you believe it is a valid criticism of alarmists?
3. Define hypocrisy.
I have no agenda, except striving for intellectual honesty.
poptech,
What is meant by the journal by ‘nepotistic’ and by skeptical commenters when they say ‘pal-review’, falls under the larger umbrella of conflict of interest. In this instance, there were several ways of dealing with conflicts of interest. But the publisher’s rapid actions indicate that a concern for due process was not high on his cards. Conflicts of interest are problems no doubt, but in science (which is the realm of ideas) they do not destroy the value of what is sought to be published.
There are many different opinions being offered here, on this thread. People think enough about these issues to write down a few paragraphs and submit it. Is there any indication from the journal of a deliberative process that reflects a fraction of this effort? What there is evidence for , on the other hand, is reflexive knee-jerk censorship with no possibility of response.
Several years ago, Ken Rothman wrote about conflict of interest in the Journal of the Americal Medical Association, an article titled Conflict of Interest: The new McCarthyism in Science. He wrote:
and
Rothman KJ. Conflict of interest. The new McCarthyism in science. JAMA. 1993
Jun 2;269(21):2782-4.
Your argument is idealistic, Anthony. But, fine, whatever, let the remaining 90% journals fall.