The Absurdity of Peer Review

Does it catch fraud or manipulations of data? No, patently not: peer reviewers are not omniscient, so they cannot divine made-up data, nor can they check all the outputs of…

Academic Freedom? The Peter Ridd Case is Part of a Much Larger Problem with Australian Universities

What academic freedom is left in Australia, if Professor Patrick Parkinson, Dean of Law at the University of Queensland had a paper rejected, because students and peer reviewers were concerned,…

The MIT Press and UC Berkeley launch Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 journal

Traditional peer review can take four or more weeks to complete, but RR:C19’s editorial team, led by editor-in-chief, Stefano M. Bertozzi, Professor of Health Policy and Management and Dean Emeritus…

The Crisis of Integrity-deficient Science

This post comes to us via Paul Driessen of CFACT.  He highlights a very serious problem.  Readers may want to weigh in with their own examples, some thoughts on why this is happening, and what…

Peer Review; Last Refuge of the (Uninformed) Troll

Current peer review science, by attempting to explain away model failure, in fact confirms that the science is wrong Guest essay by David M. Hoffer It has become a favorite…

Thanks, I'll pass

People send me stuff. I got this email today with the subject: Publish Your Research Paper And then I read the image that was the advertisement for the new journal.…

Science self-corrects: bogus study claiming Roundup tolerant GMO corn causes cancer to be retracted

Whoo boy. This sounds like a familiar climate episode. Andrew Revkin tips me to this retraction of a paper that got screaming headlines worldwide, and says this along with the…

Why Climate Science is Fallible

Guest essay by Dr. David Deming We live in a scientific age. The sciences are viewed as the only real sources of authoritative information. Knowledge derived from other epistemological systems…

New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW

From Forbes writer James Taylor: Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating…

Peer Evil – the rotten business model of modern science

Guest essay by Abzats. The most exciting period in science was, arguably, 1895-1945. It was marked by discoveries that changed the foundations of modern science: X-rays, quantum mechanics, superconductivity, relativity…

Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper

Tonight, I’m surprised to find that Gleick, who stole documents under a false identity, and then likely forged a fake memo sent to MSM outlets is apparently still on the…

Quote of the Week – marketing the consensus before it's '97% Cooked'

In the SkS forum discussion about how to create this 97% consensus paper, there was a lot of discussion about how to market it. As far as methodology, quality control,…

The madness of 97% 98% consensus herds

UPDATE: comments welcome on Dr. Richard Tol’s draft paper on this issue, see below. This will be a top post for a day, new posts will appear below this one…

The Collapsing 'Consensus'

 Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Environmental Research Letters ought to have known better than to publish the latest anti-scientific propaganda paper by John Cook of the dubiously-named Skeptical…

Is John Cook planning to use systematically biased "correct" survey answers to make unbiased skeptics look biased?

Guest post by Alec Rawls After finalizing a long post on John Cook’s crowd-sourced consensus-rating survey  (to be titled “I take Cook’s survey so you don’t have to”), I submitted…

Quote of the week – solving the peer review integrity issue

A poll follows. Over at Bishop Hill, he’s listed some quotes from Geoffry Boulton on scientific integrity that I found interesting. He writes (with apologies for posting in full, I…

ATI's FOI request to the University of Arizona 'excessively burdensome'

Chris Horner writes in with this news, I had to chuckle at some of the language UofA used in the reply, seen below, as if Malcolm Hughes and Jonathan Overpeck…

Update on Watts et al. 2012

My sincere thanks to everyone who has provided widespread review of our draft paper. There have been hundreds of suggestions and corrections submitted in comments and in email, and for…

Why the BEST papers failed to pass peer review

Whoa, this is heavy.  Ross McKitrick, who was a peer review referee for the BEST papers with the Journal of Geophysical Research got fed up with Muller’s media blitzing and …

More on Koutsoyiannis and the homogenization of temperature data – plus some comments on blog review

First, correcting an error that originated with the blog The Hockey Schtick about not giving appropriate credit. Marcel Crok writes on De staat van het klimaat One of the basic…

Forcing or Feedback?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach I read a Reviewer’s Comment on one of Richard Lindzen’s papers today, a paper about the tropics from 20°N to 20°S, and I came across…

The Journal Science – Free the code

In my opinion, this is a testament to Steve McIntyre’s tenacity. Via the GWPF: At Last, The Right Lesson From Climategate Fiasco Monday, 16 April 2012 11:21 PhysOrg A diverse…

Two opinions on the state of science publishing

I’ve been made aware of two different opinions on state of science publishing as it relates to peer review and the pressure to publish even faster due to the Internet…

Paging Mike Mann – your dendrochronologist will see you now

Tom Nelson has another Climategate 2 email well worth reading Dendrochronologists get spanked by guy with expertise in tree physiology and wood anatomy ClimateGate Email 1738 “However, there are bounds…