In an emotional commentary written for the WorldNetDaily (aka WND) Christopher Monckton has said that he’ll take over the journal and publish a first issue in March 2014. He displays what he calls a “mockup cover” (shown below) that consists of his coat of arms along with various cyclic, spirographic, and colorful psychedelic style images of natural and mathematical patterns.
Monckton writes (he calls the editor Rasmussen “the Rabbit” for some reason):
However, The Borg do not allow publishing houses to act as publishing houses. When I recently co-authored a paper with professor Fred Singer on the consequences of chaos theory for the predictability of global warming, the editor of Energy & Environment, one of the few journals to allow skeptical science an airing, ordered my name to be taken off the paper on the ground that it would annoy The Borg. Besides, she said, she did not like my politics (of which there was nothing whatsoever in the paper).
These are the points the Rabbit made in rejecting professor Mörner’s special issue and shutting down the journal:
- “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.” And why should taking part in scientific debate debar an editor?
- “Before the journal was launched, we had a long discussion regarding its topics. The aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines. PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate skeptics.” It should be a platform for science, wherever the evidence leads.
- “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).” The Rabbit stated no reason for daring to dispute their scientific conclusion?
- “While processing the press release for the special issue, ‘Patterns in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts,’ we read through the general conclusions paper published on 16 December 2013. We were alarmed by the authors’ second implication stating ‘This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.’” And why was the Rabbit “alarmed”? Because he was told to be.
There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the above passages. The Age of Reason and Enlightenment is over. The Dark Ages are back.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/the-thermageddon-cult-strikes-again/#uptbtelyETT0rmR6.99
Of course, the true measure of a journal’s success will be how much it is read, how often its articles are cited, and whether it gets that all important listing as certified journal in the ISI Web of Knowledge. See: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/
Of course that last bit isn’t a requirement, but it does help a journal become accepted. I would urge them to apply as soon as their first issue is completed.
All I can say is that I hope the people that tried to publish in the first PRP journal (now closed) find a friendly home there. It will be interesting to watch it evolve and I wish them all the success they deserve.
Judging from the comments in the WND article, it looks like Joseph A Olson (aka FauxScienceSlayer of the Slayers/PSI fame) is queuing up to submit some of his writings. I’m sure other like minded individuals will follow in seeking to publish there.
We live in interesting times.
I believe the coat of arms was added as an additional dig to his opponents (tongue in cheek).
Brilliant!! GK
Here’s a picture of a publisher’s board of directors as they decide the fate of one of their journals that transgressed against the consensus.
http://ricksheridan.netmar.com/rosicrucian/graphics/6wisdom-must-die.jpg
Steven Mosher says: “I bet you’ll try to weasel out of these requirements and be worse than Mann or Jones ever were.”
Projection, Steven, projection.
lsvalgaard says: “It would be interesting to see if the reborn journal will have the guts to also publish the texts of the reviews of each article. This way others can judge if a proper review was done [and by whom].”
Yes, indeed, Leif. How many journals already do this?
I see a millipede, a low pressure system (hurricane?), an ammonite, a circular stairwell , a flower (hibiscus?), some unidentifiable vegetables and floral patterns
The repeated visual theme of the downward spiral is presumably a reference to “the dark ages are back.”
I hope that this deal is in the bag but it seems odd that the publishers would sell the title only to attract ridicule.
Anyway, Godspeed to P. R. i. P. redux.
The pattern of the photos themselves replicates the portcullis, with rotation.
The real test is does the paper contain ALL the data, ALL the methods, ALL the computer code and everything else needed to make the information reproducible.
GAIL NAILS IT!
Papers are not science. Papers are words and figures that ADVERTISE the science that the author says he did.
Monckton will now be put to the test. Can he demand that authors to his Journal provide code and data? or will he be a sleaze like Mann and Jones
Most importantly will his reputation survive if fraudulant results are exposed?
I’m with Gail, Mosher, and Leif. If this journal is going to be anything more than a repository for way out there ideas, it needs these tools.
Lord Monckton I support your point of view and I congratulate our host for possting despite his misgivings regarding the publication circumstances of PRP.
The apparent spat with Tallbloke over this issue is unfortunate and the revealed animosity regarding Willis Eschenbach (I am a fan) is not edifying and comes at a bad time.
As has already been stated may the new journal prosper on merit.
I assume that as long as Lord Monckton reads everything that goes into his new journal, he can claim that it is definately ‘Peer’ reviewed.
jorgekafkazar says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:47 am
“It would be interesting to see if the reborn journal will have the guts to also publish the texts of the reviews of each article. This way others can judge if a proper review was done [and by whom].”
Yes, indeed, Leif. How many journals already do this?
None that I know of. And this would be a way for the new journal to improve on that sorry statistics, specially for papers that may be controversial.
On my own website I publish the text of the reviews of my own papers.
It is a commonly practiced bit of strategery to provide one’s opponents a length of rope sufficient that they will find irresistible the opportunity for self suspension.
It seems poor form to reuse the rope.
lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:01 am
jorgekafkazar says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:47 am
“It would be interesting to see if the reborn journal will have the guts to also publish the texts of the reviews of each article. This way others can judge if a proper review was done [and by whom].”
Yes, indeed, Leif. How many journals already do this?
None that I know of. And this would be a way for the new journal to improve on that sorry statistics, specially for papers that may be controversial.
On my own website I publish the text of the reviews of my own papers.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is the ideal way. In fact, peer review should improve the paper and so the reviewer becomes, in a sense, a co-author. He should be identified. Good for you , Leif.
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:37 am
Monckton of Brenchley says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
See how many of the patterns on the moc-kup front cover you can identify.
#################################
1. will you require that all papers have a proper SI?
2. will you require that all papers supply their data AS USED in the paper.
That is, they should supply an actual copy of the data, rather than pointing
to a pile somewhere as Phil Jones did.
3. Will you require that all authors supply their code used to generate their results
4. Will you retract any paper where the author fails to supply this material?
I bet you’ll try to weasel out of these requirements and be worse than Mann or Jones ever were.
__________________________________
Mosh, You’ve made some good points about what would be needed for a journal’s validity, but your sentiment and “bet” at the end…. let’s just say that you didn’t do yourself any favors.
JJ says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:16 am
” … It seems poor form to reuse the rope.”
—-l
But makes perfect economic sense 🙂
If Monckton suggests that he will start with a March 2014 issue. I hope he realises that recruiting action editors, attracting papers, sending them out for review, performing round or two of satisfactory peer review and getting the papers typeset in that timeframe is, errr… somwhat ambitious!
Parthlan says: @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 8:57 am
It just proves skeptics are cats not herd animals. Try herding cats sometime – a can of tuna works well :>)
– – – – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
Thank you for teeing up the issues surrounding the PRP situation wrt the open and free marketplace of ideas. Any given commenter’s position on the PRP scenario is an interesting litmus test about the nature of her/his world view (intellectual framework).
The intellectual dialog between world systems of the rational (free and open marketplace of ideas) versus the irrational (closed cults) has been going on for 3,000+ years. It is NEVER going to end. Nor should it end.
The question is not whether bunches of intellectually fashionable fanboys and herds of uncritical sheep will try to use coercion in the dialog to thwart the free and open marketplace of ideas. They always will try; look at history. The question is whether a lone individual has generic encouragement from his/her culture to courageously argue for the fundamental right to pursue life, liberty, happiness and intellectual independence/activity? Any world view is critically defined by that question.
I applaud you (CM) for intending, by your takeover plans of PRP, to let the free and open marketplace of ideas deal with the past PRP objectivity issues surrounding Tallbloke et al.
And CM, no doom and gloom dark age is near the place we are now. : ) Just keep vigilant to keep it that way.
John
And if he lets WUWT rake the online preprints over the coals, he can claim it’s been jeer reviewed as well.
I hope it does well. It can only open up new perspectives. Now why do I think Willis and Anthony will be getting free lifetime subscriptions? 🙂
REPLY: Likely all subscriptions will be free, I doubt they’ll be able to charge for an “open access” journal – Anthony
@Steven Mosher says:
“I bet you’ll try to weasel out of these requirements and be worse than Mann or Jones ever were.”
+1
The American Society of Testing and Materials has, in the past two decades, expanded from publishing standards in materials testing to developing and publishing professional practice standards. Those latter standards have established minimum criteria for various professional practices: For example: ASTM E678 – 07(2013):Standard Practice for Evaluation of Scientific or Technical Data; ASTM E1020 – 13 Standard Practice for Reporting Incidents that May Involve Criminal or Civil Litigation; ASTM E1527 – 13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process;
If only Peer Review could be standardized in a similar manner. Of course, academics will counter that they are not “Professionals” – a claim that no-one who follows the unethical escapades of some of them (names not needed here) would contradict.
Too bad – we professionals have licenses which we could lose over the kind of shenanigans academics pull off.
Tom G(ologist) says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:59 am
Too bad – we professionals have licenses which we could lose over the kind of shenanigans academics pull off.
Standards are good, but ANYBODY should be allowed to publish scientific research, regardless of credentials and licences. If the paper survives peer-review that is enough.
Of course, the true measure of a journal’s success will be how much it is read, how often its articles are cited, and whether it gets that all important listing as certified journal in the ISI Web of Knowledge.
A missing element is it must be profitable.
Newspapers and magazines first and foremost exist to sell advertising. Content is the inducement.
At the least the benefits to be gained by the publisher must outweigh its costs. Benefits can be measured in more than $. Often benefits include political influence to an extent where the monetary losses are inconsequential in comparison.