|
Post by helen on Feb 8, 2011 15:52:28 GMT 1
Can you substantiate this? (the fact that Antarctica is just as freezing as it was 30 years ago was always a problem for the Team, a bit like the MWP which they did their best to erase from the record via Mann's Hockey Stick). Where is the graph that denies the mwp? Who has published evidence that the poles are cooling? What evidence have you of statistical chicanary? Is this from another 'sun is made of iron' blog spot? Post the links!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 19:18:15 GMT 1
This thread is about peer review. You are off-topic again, as per usual, helen. Post about peer review or shut up.
All of a sudden you are not interested in peer review after boring the asses off us about it being the sine qua non of academic excellence on the old BBC Science board.
Caught out lying and with a disastrous conflict of interest situation, Steig and his work is rightly being trashed. A key member of the (Hockey) Team is getting what he and Real Climate deserves. Live with it.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 21:53:20 GMT 1
Jim Owen | February 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm at Climate Etc said
With respect to Steig/O’Donell – my wife was involved for 5 years in the peer review process at AMS [American Meteorological Society which publishes the Journal of Climate]. When I told her that Steig was Reviewer A on the O’Donnell paper, she couldn’t believe it. Her opinion, like mine, is that that is unconscionable – and that the peer review process is “broken”.
This isn’t the first area of science to experience the “broken” peer review process. Nor will it be the last.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 22:01:23 GMT 1
Judith Curry | February 8, 2011 at 8:02 am said
Re pal review. The journals published by the American Meteorological Society (incl J. Climate, where O’Donnell et al was published) do NOT use the pal review system whereby authors are required to recommend 5 reviewers (Nature and most other journals DO use this pal review system). As a result, papers submitted to AMS journals overall are subject to a stiffer review process. So selecting Stieg to review the paper is appropriate, but the editor should have shown judgment in how this was weighted in the decision making process and how much of that lengthy review the authors actually needed to respond to.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 22:05:12 GMT 1
"Nature" is where the Steig et al 2009 paper received the uncritical acclaim of the "consensus" with a front page colour picture of a red hot West Antarctica. "Nature" is where Steig et al received uncritical pal review. “A new reconstruction of Antarctic surface temperature trends for 1957–2006, reported this week by Steig et al., suggests that overall the continent is warming by about 0.1 °C per decade. The cover illustrates the geographic extent of warming, with the ‘hotspot’ peninsula and West Antarctica shown red against the white ice-covered ocean. [Cover image: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/University of Washington/USGS]“ Co-authors: Eric J. Steig, David P. Schneider, Scott D. Rutherford, Michael E. Mann, Josefino C. Comiso & Drew T. Shindell
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 22:12:45 GMT 1
Viv Evans | February 8, 2011 at 1:12 pm at Climate Etc said
... It took ten months for the paper to get published. I am forcefully reminded of the situation described by Steve McIntyre, in regard to a letter he and Ross McKittrick wrote to Nature, on one of Mann’s papers – which, after long reviews and rewrites, was deemed too long to get published.
This is the technique of using ‘peer review’ to block critical papers, of which we’ve been made aware for some time, not just through the CRU e-mails.
So yes – I think this is an outrage, and no amount of reconciliation between scientists can sweep it under the carpet.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 22:16:26 GMT 1
Peter317 | February 8, 2011 at 8:12 am at Climate Etc said
One of Michael Crichton’s suggestions was for journals to publish all review comments along with the papers.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 22:30:19 GMT 1
Steve McIntyre | February 8, 2011 at 10:06 am at Climate Etc said
I talked to a friend of mine who is a philosophy professor about reviewing under conflict and he said that it was strictly prohibited in philosophy journals and that the reviewer would be obliged to return the manuscript. Something like the Steig situation would not be tolerated.
In business, undisclosed conflicts of interest by professionals are a very serious matter. If a professional has no alternative other than to act despite a conflict of interest, the conflict has to be clearly disclosed to all parties and informed consent obtained.
The acquiescence of climate science journals in reviewer conflicts of interest that are unreported to the submitting author is something that seems very hard to justify.
It is my opinion that Journal of Climate should have been able to locate competent reviewers without involving the Steig coauthors. While an author being criticized should have the right of reply, the reply should be in his own name and submitted to external reviewers along with the comment.
In particular, Journal of Climate should not have presented Steig as an anonymous reviewer. Had we known for sure that Steig was Reviewer A, our responses to Reviewer A would have been totally different and the article would have been different. As anonymous Reviewer A (Steig’s identity was not confirmed until after acceptance), Steig was able to affect the contents of the article, including the loss of important sections on, for example, Chladni patterns. As anonymous Reviewer A, Steig’s opinion was counted by the editor in requiring a “major revision” i.e. one that had to be re-submitted to reviewers thereby extending the process for months.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 8, 2011 22:44:28 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 23:20:34 GMT 1
Have you not looked at reply #33, Louise?
Do keep up, dear.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 9, 2011 8:21:17 GMT 1
So the blog's owner, somebody respected by the skepic community and who is familiar with how the peer review process works explains that there is nothing wrong in using Steig as a reviewer.
and your point is?
Was it to highlight just how warped and twisted McIntyre's thinking is - you achieve that much at least.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 9, 2011 9:42:40 GMT 1
Louise,
Um. Are you excused from Jury duty?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 9, 2011 10:25:48 GMT 1
"One of Michael Crichton’s suggestions was for journals to publish all review comments along with the papers."
What's wrong with that as a suggestion, along with reviewers signing their names to their criticisms?
The internet makes all this so easy. Why are journals still operating as if in the dark ages of print?
The Team must be learning that there is no such thing as anonymity in the internet age. Good.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 10, 2011 10:28:36 GMT 1
From rabett.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-steve-and-ryan-knew-and-when-they.html#commentsFrom: John Nielsen-Gammon Subject: reviews and reviewers Date: December 8, 2010 10:59:20 AM CST To: Jeff Id, Steve McIntyre
Jeff & Steve (with copies to AMS publications leadership) -
What I told you about making reviews publicly available is correct. There's no AMS policy against, nor any formal objection to, an author making the contents of anonymous reviews and responses public. If a reviewer provides his or her name, or if there is other information that makes it possible to discern the identity of the reviewer, such information should be redacted unless the reviewer grants permission.
In the context of this, I would think that publishing an anonymous review and speculating as to the identity of the reviewer would be unethical. The author, if making the review public, has a duty to preserve the anonymity of the reviewer.Note the date
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 10, 2011 10:40:52 GMT 1
Posting at Bishop Hill Feb 10, 2011 at 9:03 AM commentator "j" wrote:
As a scientist who frequently writes and referees papers (in a different area), I too would like to say that it seems perfectly legitimate to ask authors of a paper criticized by a manuscript to be referees of that manuscript. I've experienced this situation myself. In fact, it is good practice as those people will be among the most well informed on the topic under consideration.
However, the editor must keep the situation under tight control. (a) Other, disinterested people must be used as referees. Finding disinterested referees in climate science does just about seem feasible - the other three referees have done a mostly fair job on the O'Donnell paper, glancing at their reviews. (b) Negative comments from the interested referees must be discounted if they are arguments from authority rather than statements of fact. This is really difficult for the editor to do, particularly in an environment where the there is a much higher perceived legitimacy in the field for the referees compared to the authors.
My experience in such cases is that, much as happened here, things sort of work out as they should, but only after much haggling. I would say that the editor has been just about fair on this one.
The lasting outcome of all this is that a paper that implied near-catastrophic evolution of temperatures in the Antarctic got published in Nature, put on the front cover, and bounced around newspapers and TV, whereas the paper showing that this previous result is almost entirely wrong did get published, but only in a much less prominent journal and without all the PR in the media.
-------
Speaking personally I have no objection to authors of papers being critiqued being amongst the reviewers. Hostile review is part of a spectrum of possibly constructive criticisms. The point is it should be known and out in the open. If Science is not completely open it cannot progress. There is no room for cabals trying to thwart eachother.
|
|