Comment on Peer review is f***ed up by Nick Stokes
It’s all very well to muse on the extensive blog reviews of a few papers. But they are few indeed; the productivity is very low. The IPCC 2007 report referred to about 18500 papers. Who is going to...
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by Don Monfort
The editors comply with the pal reviewers. If they don’t they get into trouble. Those of you defending the pal-peer review system against blog review are making the assumption that someone has...
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by Jonathan Jones
Peer review primarily serves the interests of the journals, not the authors or the readers. The process is far too cursory to pick up all but egregious errors or fundamental misunderstandings; beyond...
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by sharper00
“The editors comply with the pal reviewers. If they don’t they get into trouble.” Ah the old conspiracy theory defence. I never knew climate scientists were so uniquely powerful. “Those of you...
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by Bart R
There are so many adverse rewards in the system of scientific research as practiced that the minor complaints about the inconvenience of peer review seems like registering an issue with the temperature...
View ArticleComment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by blueice2hotsea
Are you saying that I over simplified beliefs of deniers? If so, I plead guilty. Sorry.
View ArticleComment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by Girma
After reading the above, I am perplexed why most still accept AGW as established science ready for policy.
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by Andrew Park
Two big and related problems with peer-review are that people are short of time and that reviewers are sloppy adn often poorly qualified. I have received peer-reviews, which i) were obviously written...
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by Fred Moolten
Like the Loch Ness monster, the subject of peer review surfaces periodically in this blog and elsewhere. Peer review isn’t going to go away (I hope), but it will undoubtedly evolve, if for no other...
View ArticleComment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by Tom
The abrupt move of the Rook, left his Queen in check. The next move will be all about the Queen. No one cares about the rook anymore.
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by Nick Stokes
Journals are businesses. They compete. They have to find a system which authors will submit papers, reviewers will provide their time, and readers will pay money. All three are necessary. The current...
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by gbaikie
“We are at the point now where is nothing can be accomplished until we get government out of the classroom.” Because, news is not objective, and peer reviewed isn’t science? Something everything should...
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by RiHo08
There can be no “objective” peer-review in a politically intensive topic like climate science. There is just too much to loose by climate scientists; talk about seeing one’s life flash before one’s...
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by Brian H
FM; As I understand it, the Hypothes.is project is an attempt to accelerate the “Darwinian” processes you speak of. Some aspects of how they intend to accomplish what they claim are their goals are...
View ArticleComment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by GaryM
First sentence last paragraph should read “Oh, and OPEC does [] raise its prices….”
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by Brian H
One further: "Science doesn’t advance because journals always make the right decisions, but because genuinely important work can be replicated and spurious advances can’t." Here is where the...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Comment on Peer review is f***ed up by dallas
“My guess is that this Darwinian process will play a large role in determining the future shape of peer review.” Maybe we can start a Darwin Awards Honorable Mention list
View ArticleComment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by JamesG
The thing is that the climategate emails have several emails from CRU where they state that the medieval warm period was probably as warm as the present day and that they didn’t really believe Mann’s...
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by Willis Eschenbach
JC comments: During the past few weeks, we have seen two interesting examples of peer review: the pre-publication extended peer review of the BEST papers, … Absolutely not. The BEST papers were...
View ArticleComment on Peer review is f***ed up by Fred Moolten
I think that’s true for relatively inconsequential reports, but any paper that claims to be a significant advance will almost invariably inspire attempts to replicate the results. Most spurious claims...
View Article