This episode of Climate Change Roundtable titled, “The failure of peer review: Climate is Beholden to Bullying and Bad Decisions” delves into the shadowy and competitive world of climate journal publications. In this episode, our host, Anthony Watts, and weekly panelists, Dr. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken, will delve into the not-so-scientific ways that science gets published (or retracted) that have come to light in the past two weeks. We’ll discuss Dr. Robert T. Brown’s stunning admission that he held back certain data and analysis in order to ensure his climate paper got published by Nature. We’ll also look at the “climategate gang” and how they have bullied another journal to retract a paper they don’t like, which had already passed peer review. Now, new evidence has emerged of even more bullying. Tune in LIVE for Climate Change Roundtable at Noon CT/1PM ET this Friday to engage in this enlightening discussion. Don’t forget to leave your questions to have them answered live during the show! Tune in to share your thoughts and be a part of this pivotal conversation.
The late Thomas Gold wrote about this in the late 80’s. The paper is worth reading. A very astute fellow.
New Ideas in Science, Thomas Gold 1989 (amasci.com)
Peer review is subject to peer pressure- so anyone who thinks it’s clean as the driven snow hasn’t gotten past high school level naivete.
Patrick, not Robert
The whole climate farce, over and above “climategate, makes academia look filthy. It’s just as well our politicians are so smart and clean. Otherwise we could be in real trouble.
I was peer reviewer for a few tech conferences. Volunteer. Its the kind of thing one does when one is young- painting Tom Sawyer’s fence. I was scared to correct people who (I hope!) knew more than me. I could see where marketing minds “fixed” the work of tech minds easily.
Even decades ago, ESL was a noteworthy problem. The guys with advanced degrees from colleges that look good written at the top of the papers were not from North America.
The point is/was that peer review depends a lot on charity. Who has time to donate free work to someone elses’s life work?