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 see no reason for this as it appears to be an isolated incident, while for example; Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Morner both get published in various other journals. Anthony appears open to discussions on published work, even when he disagrees with it (not to be confused with tangential comment discussion blowups).
Really the question could be, is peer review useful?
The myth of peer review was very useful to the, science as a cloak for activism,IPCC crowd.
The reality of journal pal review became apparent in 2009.
The only historic value was in protecting the journals reputation.
A journal which repeatedly publishes nonsense does not last long.
However in climatology peer/pal review has been nothing more than a power tool.
The journals had the power, they hit the tilt button, the power is gone.
As far as vetting the science prior to publishing, the journals are not doing so well.
Every IPCC deadline has seen a surge of rather pathetic nonsense rushed to print.
So as a credible tool peer review is dead and getting rather smelly.
If a scientist does not discuss their theory with their friends and colleges before publishing, what are they doing?
Is academia so corrupt, that this basic first step is impossible?
Will pal review as of old, now result in theft of concept?
This was pal/peer review, then the journal would screen an article by their own criteria, publish as they saw fit, then publish criticisms as they saw fit.
Peer review as applied to climatology is a power tool, which the internet has made redundant.
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:49 am (previous thread)
The reason is very simple and well-understood: Enceladus is within Saturn’s magnetosphere and there are magnetic field lines connecting the atmosphere of Saturn with Enceladus, so particles can travel towards Saturn and cause aurorae with associated radio-effects [not changing the magnetic field of the planet]. For the Sun, the situation is very different as the outflowing solar wind prevents effects to travel upstream to reach the Sun.
The Earth is within the Sun’s magnetosphere. Magnetic field line connect it to Earth and beyond.
I don’t know what you’re angling toward with this.
There’s definitely a change going on with Saturn’s magnetic field. This is a fact beyond dispute.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20070322.html
The water vapor spews out into a big donut shaped field surrounding the planet. Then the sun hits . Every occasionally an electron is stripped and suddenly Saturn’s mag field is dragging another water ion, gradually slowing it down from 10 hours 38 minutes 25 seconds during the Voyager flyby to 10 hours 45 minutes 45 seconds as recorded by Cassini in 2004.
There is also the issue of a cloud top speed differential between the equator and the pole.
What causes the polar clouds to drag 25 minutes behind?
Could it be a mechanism similar to the 9 day drag at the sun’s north pole?
Journals, like newspapers, are the walking dead. There was a time in history when the cost and time required to type set, print, and circulate documents necessitated both. That’s now in the past. The only reason they continue to exist at all is that we are still experimenting with this new medium called the internet, and the formal methods for publishing and reviewing science are still being established. We’re witnessing a revolution just as profound as the printing press, with the standards and procedures for this new medium still being quite experimental, though rapidly evolving.
Journals and newspapers have no actual value other than that which is accorded to them by their brand name. They aggregate content on certain subjects, which makes a good one tremendously useful to stay up to date on a specific area of interest, and they earn my viewership of their content by providing that service. But only a tiny fraction of a newspaper is reserved for public debate. Journals provide none, only a strictly controlled process by which the anointed may seek to debate the science itself.
If you’re wondering what I think the future of science publication and debate is going to look like, I assert that we’re all participating in it right now. Oh, it is still evolving obviously, and you can’t publish a paper that garners comments from millions of people as consuming that many comments is impossible for a human being. But the future of science publication and debate is going to look a lot more like WUWT than it will the printing press.
As unfortunate an incident as this has been, the take away is not that some skeptics have scored an own goal. The take away is that the processes predicated upon the printing press for review and publication of science are fatally flawed, and need to be replaced with tools and processes predicated upon the much larger audience that is now capable of participating on both a formal and informal basis.
Peer review is dead. Crowd review is the new paradigm.
poptech
There does appear to be a problem when authors review each others papers and publish, as has happened here (?). But the reason for why such a thing is wrong has to be articulated better. These reasons ought not to include the scientific orientation of the people in question, i.e., whether they were ‘sceptics’ or otherwise.
Shub, I understand your points but if you look at the links I provided above regarding Copernicus Publications, this appears a fairly blatant violation of their editorial and refereeing rules.
By violating these rules and allowing an easy charge or “pal-review” you destroy honest debate on the scientific contents of the papers.
It is can also be argued that PRP was not created to simply look at “Pattern Recognition in Physics” as was originally claimed, with an unusually high number of climate skeptic authors in the first special edition from a journal I had never heard of before not about climate change.
Regardless, skeptics should be resourceful enough to shield themselves from any such criticisms and not fall into these traps. They should be strategic and demand reviewers who cannot be so easily accused of giving a “soft” review.
davidmhoffer, the only thing changing in peer-review is open-access journals (Which PRP was).
Crowd review gives you junk like Wikipedia.
The issue is the determined attempt by supporters of IPCC pseudo-science to claim that any criticism of it should not be published. A prominent critic on the JoNova Blog about the PRP special edition was one William Connolley, a would-be UK Green Party politician: I wrote in reply: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-paper-doubts-ipcc-so-whole-journal-gets-terminated/
“But, William, the so-called IPCC theory, originating with Sagan then Houghton and finally Trenberth, called the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, assumes that the Earth’s surface emits real IR energy to the atmosphere as if it were an isolated black body in Space in radiative equilibrium with its zero point energy. Then it assumes that the atmosphere radiates heat energy to the warmer surface.
No competent scientist or engineer accepts this to be true. Unfortunately, Meteorology now Climate Alchemy imagine it is. The reason is that they think the output of a pyrgeometer is a real energy flux when it is a Radiation Field, the aforesaid hypothetical black body flux to Space. Only the difference of RFs drives radiative energy transport.
This explains the failure of the IPCC models to account for 17 year 4 months no warming, a period of 1.02 Santers. They are broken from the very start in respect of heat generation and transport. Closing down journals which question your illogical religion won’t stop it being based on science fiction. What’s more, it will not stop the reaction by real scientists and engineers to this form of Gresham’s Law applied to Science, bad physics driving out good.
Just be a good boy and accept that because you and your mates have failed to be professional and/or were taught incorrect physics, you can’t throw all the toys out of the pram. Very soon, if you continue to behave like spoilt brats, which is what you lot are, your trousers will metaphorically be taken down and you will be belted out of any contact with real science to punish you and your ilk.
Be off with you and leave the field to the honest majority.”
Poptech;
Crowd review gives you junk like Wikipedia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And it gives you tremendously valuable forums like WUWT. As I said, the medium is evolving. Don’t paint the whole internet with the same brush.
Is there a clearcut way to verify if pal review (a.k.a. “nepotism”) happened in an anonymous referee system? If not, we have a pervasive problem at our hands, far greater than copernicusgate can ever get.
Poptech says: January 19, 2014 at 4:55 pm
Thanks Poptech, for the salutory links to remind us of the scoundrels in the climate “peer-review” hierarchy. It’s important to keep grounded in the actual situtation which is that it’s not so much the nominal process as the chief actors who are calling the shots.
Shub, sometimes things can be this simple,
If known skeptics “peer-review” known skeptic authors, will the charge of “pal-review” be brought by alarmists? If so why give them the ammunition? Does elementary strategy really need to be taught here?
poptech,
I agree with your last paragraph.
That said, I took a a look at Tallbloke’s paper. It says it was reviewed by: H. Jelbring and one anonymous referee”. The rules state: “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.”
I don’t know if Roger Tattersall has a personal connection with H Jelbring. Nor do I know whether they have a professional connection. Being a skeptic falls in neither category and does not qualify for a conflict of interest.
If we accept being a sceptic qualifies for a potential conflict as reviewer, we’d have to accept gatekeeping activities by climate scientists too. If the former is legitimate, the latter would be too.
Anthony,
Thanks for your sanctimonious rhetoric.
Somehow you missed the main issue in Climategate. The “Hockey Team” controls the “Peer Review Process” in climate science publications.
To pillory honest scientists for contriving to publish their views in defiance of the “Hockey Team” is shameful.
If you want to regain my respect you need to critique the papers in the issue of “Pattern Recognition in Physics” that created this tempest in a teapot. In my opinion the papers you criticize are of higher quality than the works of the “Hockey Team” with their faulty numerical analysis, inverted Tiljander sediments and the lone Yamal pine. If you disagree, please give your reasons.
I agree with one of Shub’s points, and it is a minor flaw in Anthony’s writeup. It’s the use of the term “known skeptics” in describing editors, authors, and reviewers, and in my scathing criticism on the previous thread, I never used that language. The issue is that in a targeted topic Special Edition, authors reviewed other authors’ work. Editors wrote papers and reviewed each others’ work. Editors reviewed papers. It was one big circle-jerk and then they all sat down together and wrote a summary of how it all fits together.
Whether you respect the peer review journal system or not, reviews are not supposed to be pats on the back and attaboys. They are supposed to provide a modest filter for the quality and presentation of novel ideas. Like thinkers will miss problems due to confirmation bias and groupthink. It is actually beneficial to have hostile reviewers. If a paper can survive a hostile review it is likely a strong paper. If a paper needs to be changed to stand up to a hostile review it likely becomes stronger. It’s up to the editor to balance the hostile review for accuracy, logic, and reasonableness. How could the editors of this Kumbaya camp fire review possibly hold any remote appearance of neutrality when they themselves were writing some of the mutually reinforcing papers all headed to support the same overall conclusion and then having another other editor inviting their buddies to review them?
Peer review is imperfect and has been co-opted many times by warmists and in other fields. But I’ve never heard of or even conceived of a situation as bad as this. The editors failed in their duty to follow the stated rules of the publisher. They also mislead the publisher as to their intent in even creating the journal which was to provide a forum for fringe AGW skeptics and to attempt to legitimize said fringe AGW skeptics despite their stated promise not to. They committed fraud. They have no ethical ground to stand on. Even if some of their papers have any merit, at this point they have no more legitimacy than a blog post, or this comment, due to their failure at the process of running a journal. They certainly have not been forged in any peer review process.
papiertigre says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:52 pm
I don’t know what you’re angling toward with this.
I’ll try to explain: The Earth and the sun are magnetically connected as are Saturn and its moon. Charged particles can move along magnetic field lines and do move from that moon down to Saturn, but cannot move from the Earth [or any other planet] down to the Sun because the solar wind is sweeping all such paticles away from the sun.
There’s definitely a change going on with Saturn’s magnetic field. This is a fact beyond dispute.
No, there is a change in the magnetic field above Saturn, not within Saturn. Saturn’s intrinsic internal field is not changed.
gallopingcamel says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:35 pm
Boy, you know how to set a high threshold …
w.
(Do I need the /sarc tag?)
Anthony You need to distinguish between the establishment review process which in many fields, as seen in climate-gate, for climate science is designed to prevent the publication of unfashionable or unorthodox views and what happened at PRP which facilitated the public appearance of useful papers which should be judged only by their content. Over the last fifty years the peer review process has seriously retarded advancement in many fields and has really outlived its usefulness .Why does anyone in the 21st century feel the need to interpose third parties between the authors and the public? In this day and age when most research is publically funded most scientific papers should be published without referee review on line with downloadable PDFs and be accompanied by all necessary supporting data.Scientists in the field and the public at large can then read the papers for themselves and simply post their own comments and reviews on line just like comments on WUWT threads. In fact WUWT might consider developing a special section for just that purpose – indeed to a useful extent WUWT already serves this very useful role in climate science – similar to arXiv in many ways.
The peer review process serves to prevent publication – it is well past it’s sell by date.
charles the moderator says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:36 pm
That’s the problem in a nutshell. For example, after Roger Tallbloke has provided much support in public for Hans Jelbring’s claims, and has given Jelbring space to publish his ideas on Tallbloke’s Talkshop. They also are both among the co-authors of a study published in the Special Editions … then Jelbring reviews Roger’s paper?
While that may not be a conflict of interest, it certainly provides that appearance.
More to the point, you should choose reviewers who don’t believe the claims of the person writing the paper if you want peer review to have any meaning. What counts is whether your enemies can find flaws in your work, not whether your friends can find flaws in your work …
w.
davidmhoffer said: January 19, 2014 at 8:53 pm
“ Journals, like newspapers, are the walking dead. ……. “
Thanks David. The whole piece was really – really good. I said a bit above “Peer review is an idea whose time is long gone.” In fact, it’s a wonder science publishing has survived recently IN SPITE OF PEER REVIEW. Or – Has it survived? As a fun exercise, just Google “Peer Review is XXXX” (supply various invectives of your own).
The best news out of all of this is further confirmation no one reads alarmist blogs since their articles dump out of searches almost immediately meaning their page ranking is garbage. It must be painful to them knowing no one reads their tripe.
Nicola wrote –
“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.”
From that work –
“. If the orbital period, T, is measured in years and the semi-major axis, a, is measured in astronomical units (AU, the average Sun–Earth distance), Kepler’s third law takes the
simple form of T 2 = a3. ”
That is not what Kepler stated ,this is what is said –
“The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances.” Kepler
An expanded version makes it understandable to everyone –
“But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun. 1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun.” Kepler
Newton chanted voodoo at this particular loose correlation between orbital periods and distance from the Sun,a correlation which equalizes orbital distances and does nothing to explain them or provide a basis for an explanation . Want to do retroactive peer review then do it on Sir Isaac’s work because his version looks like it came from a person who drank too much coffee.
“That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun ” Newton
“Whether the Sun revolves around the Earth” indeed !. What a mess !.
Exactly and I have been trying my best to avoid posting further damning evidence out of respect.
Willis Eschenbach said in part January 19, 2014 at 10:00 pm:
“……. What counts is whether your enemies can find flaws in your work, not whether your friends can find flaws in your work … “
Willis – I take your point – but think it can be turned around. PRIOR to publication, it is your friends, not your enemies, who if they BE your friends, will try to keep you out of trouble. They should try to “enemy-proof” you. But anyone involved, friend or foe, SHOULD be actively looking for flaws.
At this point Poptech, why hold back? What have they done that’s worthy of your restraint? Given the extremely disconcerting support they’ve received, I think anything you have that demonstrates the egregiousness of the PRP mob’s behavior should be shown.