Is the academic peer review process fundamentally flawed?
Roger Dewhurst
should be the responsibility of each author to get his contribution
vetted. Having done so he/she/they are totally responsible for the
content. The journals would have no responsibility other than accepting
the contributions as is or rejecting them. Doubtless some editors will
choose to adopt a particular political line but others will not. If
there is a marked polarization of view on a particular issue those
editors/journals gamble if they take one side against the other. Some
other journal will always publish the stuff. The journals which tend to
be even handed will soon get the best reputations and therefore get the
most contributions.
Matty F
The peer review process for climate related articles is flawed because
the rules are being broken, and certain science journals don't seem to
care.
The authors and reviewers are not supposed to know each other, but the
Climategate emails show that they do know each other and review each
others' work.
Roger Dewhurst
I suspect that the problem is wider than Climategate. At the moment
there is potential for any faction to get control of the editorial
policy of a journal. We see one example currently. I have no doubt
that there are others.
Sailor Sam
I thought you claimed scientific credentials at one point.
The point I'm making here is, most scientists I know are prats, they
will try to act ethically, but deep down they're all... human.
Rich...@hotmail.com
That is essentially what is already happening, Roger. Perhaps you just
have a problem with the papers published by reputable journals.
Most of the papers on global warming are not in any way political -
perhaps that's your problem with them.
John Cawston
Which is why they are often managed at work by someone with
administrative and head banging skills.. and of course, why there
is supposed to be a rigorous peer review process.
However, seemingly missing from paleoclimatology (because its
largely an academic exercise) is direct interaction with those
who have to implement the science.. thats usually a good check on
scientific isolation.
JC
Roger Dewhurst
If only!
R
Sailor Sam
Hmm, the adversarial nature of 'climate' science provides ample
oppourtunity.
Getting to know colleagues in your field is natural, especially once you
become specialised and there are very few others that even understand
your work, let alone are able to properly review it.
> However, seemingly missing from paleoclimatology (because its largely an
> academic exercise) is direct interaction with those who have to
> implement the science.. thats usually a good check on scientific isolation.
>
> JC
Hmm, I'm struggling to think of people who implement Stephen Hawkings
work, or anybody who implements anything to do with gravity, or anybody
who implements anything to do with Charles Darwins work. (There's a
theme there...)
I know climate science is raw at the moment, I agree, I also can think
of points in history (even recent history) where established science has
been orthogonal to facts, that were established much later.
But the only _true_ way to fight it, is not with all the bitching, and
finger pointing, but with _facts_. And, with something like climate
science, we just dont have those, now, or for the foreseeable future.
(AIUI)
Sailor Sam
> or anybody who implements anything to do with gravity,
And not just it's (supposed) effects.
John Cawston
Thats my point. Its not like taking science and developing a
widget where there is feedback of a practical nature.
>
> I know climate science is raw at the moment, I agree, I also can think
> of points in history (even recent history) where established science has
> been orthogonal to facts, that were established much later.
>
> But the only _true_ way to fight it, is not with all the bitching, and
> finger pointing, but with _facts_. And, with something like climate
> science, we just dont have those, now, or for the foreseeable future.
> (AIUI)
Enter "Post normal science"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
JC
>
>
>
Sailor Sam
> Enter "Post normal science"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
>
> JC
My immediate argument there is, it suggests those without any scientific
knowledge are able to provide facts.
The counter argument is, if those people possess the facts, research,
and in depth study of those individuals should yield those facts.
It's the old, "it's been common knowledge for millenia" vs "This is what
we have established as fact" argument.
hellicopter
Of course they know each other! Don't you understand peer review.
When a scientist publishes a paper they cite other scientists
work in the field, even some they disagree with, so as to show
they have read all the work (and often why they were at odds with them).
The number of citations a paper has shows the merit of the
scientist. A dumb ass paper saying climate change can't happen
because its a fraud would not get past the journal editors.
A paper that looks to have done the ground work, referenced
key scientists, showed they understand others works, then
show why those other works were flawed, will get the nod
from the editors who likely aren't going to worry they don't
understand the works.
The payoff, the peer review, occurs when a person needing to
find the latest work goes and find how many citations were
made, by whom. So everyone in the area knows the best
scientists work and so can give an expert opinion.
The idea that some slob can publish a paper and act as an
expert is ludicrous. Its how many citations, how prominent
their work is, that goes to the integrity as scientists.
This is why to have two talking heads, stand off against
each other, because one guy is for and one guy against
climate change arguments is a joke, if neither likely
has ever read a credible paper on the subject and even
if they have, has never published one. Let alone won
any citations amongst the peers in the subject.
The media need cheap lazy stories to fill out 3 minutes of
TV time, they are hardly going to spend time doing any
in depth search amongst the best of the subject. When
they can have two fat heads up talking nonsense like they
were experts. Laugh a minute!
vitw
> In the light of recent disclosures I suggest that it is. Perhaps it
> should be the responsibility of each author to get his contribution
> vetted. Having done so he/she/they are totally responsible for the
> content. The journals would have no responsibility other than accepting
> the contributions as is or rejecting them. Doubtless some editors will
> choose to adopt a particular political line but others will not. If
> there is a marked polarization of view on a particular issue those
> editors/journals gamble if they take one side against the other. Some
> other journal will always publish the stuff.
The academic peer review process is a very effective tool for screening
out non-conformity, major paradigm shifts and everything else which
doesn't fit within the comfort zones of the academic masses.
> The journals which tend to
> be even handed will soon get the best reputations and therefore get the
> most contributions.
That is, of course, as long as they don't carry anything too far outside
the comfort zones.
The peer review process is a double edged sword. On one hand, it helps
filter out a lot of cranks and their nonsense. On the other hand, it
slows progress by taking a risk-averse role and, as such, can block a lot
of great discoveries.
For instance, would Einstein's STR and GTR have passed a peer review
process at the time he formulated them? I don't think so. He had stuff-
all hard astronomical data to back up his premises.
Lyndon Watson
> On Dec 28, 4:21 pm, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
> > In the light of recent disclosures I suggest that it is. Perhaps it
> > should be the responsibility of each author to get his contribution
> > vetted. Having done so he/she/they are totally responsible for the
> > content. The journals would have no responsibility other than accepting
> > the contributions as is or rejecting them. Doubtless some editors will
> > choose to adopt a particular political line but others will not. If
> > there is a marked polarization of view on a particular issue those
> > editors/journals gamble if they take one side against the other. Some
> > other journal will always publish the stuff. The journals which tend to
> > be even handed will soon get the best reputations and therefore get the
> > most contributions.
That is a recipe for publication of inferior work. Anyone can do that
at the moment by publishing on the Web. The mostly horrendously
expensive (the subscription price of "Physics Review" is enough to
send one into shock) peer reviewed journals continue to exist because
of a rigorous peer-review process. Without it there's no great point
in buying them.
> The peer review process for climate related articles is flawed because
> the rules are being broken, and certain science journals don't seem to
> care.
> The authors and reviewers are not supposed to know each other, but the
> Climategate emails show that they do know each other and review each
> others' work.
In most fields it is impossible for articles at the top level to be
peer-reviewed by total strangers. The number of people at that level
is small enough that they all meet each other at conferences. I've
had articles published in peer-reviewed astronomical journals, and it
is usually possible to work out who the reviewers are because of their
polemic style and positions on various matters of contention. I can
tell you from painful experience that knowing the reviewers does not
give your precious article an easy ride!
LW
thingy
On Dec 28, 4:21 pm, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
> In the light of recent disclosures I suggest that it is.
Peer review is just that, these are scientific papers not a populist
or political piece of tripe so they should be written to a high
provable scientific standard, and they are.
The population dont have to read the scientific journals, its not
compulsory.
>Perhaps it
> should be the responsibility of each author to get his contribution
> vetted.
In which case any idiot can print anything...which is what the deniers
do now. They dont publish in scientif journals because they dont meet
an open peer review process.
Having done so he/she/they are totally responsible for the
> content.
Oh come on...
>The journals would have no responsibility other than accepting
> the contributions as is or rejecting them.
Which is what newspapers do, different audiance, ppl pay to read a
newspaper, scientists and ppl interested in science pay to read
scientific papers, free market,, freedom to choose how and to whom you
publish and all that..
>Doubtless some editors will
> choose to adopt a particular political line but others will not.
This is the point, rather that choosing a political point of view to
determine content the journal chooses a different criteria.
> If
> there is a marked polarization of view on a particular issue those
> editors/journals gamble if they take one side against the other.
Which happens now...but this isnt science...science is about
repeatable and provable fact...not shoddy and politically biased
opinion.
>Some
> other journal will always publish the stuff. The journals which tend to
> be even handed will soon get the best reputations and therefore get the
> most contributions.
Which is what happens now.
regards
thing
thingy
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:21:05 +1300, Roger Dewhurst
>
> >In the light of recent disclosures I suggest that it is. Perhaps it
> >should be the responsibility of each author to get his contribution
> >vetted. Having done so he/she/they are totally responsible for the
> >content. The journals would have no responsibility other than accepting
> >the contributions as is or rejecting them. Doubtless some editors will
> >choose to adopt a particular political line but others will not. If
> >there is a marked polarization of view on a particular issue those
> >editors/journals gamble if they take one side against the other. Some
> >other journal will always publish the stuff. The journals which tend to
> >be even handed will soon get the best reputations and therefore get the
> >most contributions.
>
> That is essentially what is already happening, Roger. Perhaps you just
> have a problem with the papers published by reputable journals.
Of course he does...deniers have long given up on publishing in
scientfic journals.
> Most of the papers on global warming are not in any way political -
> perhaps that's your problem with them.
Of course it is...
thingy
>
> > I know climate science is raw at the moment,
Rot, it has a history going back decades....1930s...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
If this is your defination of raw, I suggest you dont fly for another
hundred years or so.
regards
Thing
thingy
Exactly....there is no quarter, academia ...in fact some Ive met take
great delight in finding even the smallest chinks and mistakes and
siting on the outside they seem almost bitchy...but they will be real
chinks and mistakes. Cant say the same for politics and
economics...which is where the deniers come from.
regards
Thing
Sailor Sam
Flying has one great thing going for it climate science doesn't. I can
test if it works now, and in the future, with out any doubt whatsoever.
Climate change OTOH I cannot (It's a one shot deal, either way).
Now, calm down before you make Roger and Colp look mildly sane.
Matty F
> I know climate science is raw at the moment, I agree, I also can think
> of points in history (even recent history) where established science has
> been orthogonal to facts, that were established much later.
>
> But the only _true_ way to fight it, is not with all the bitching, and
> finger pointing, but with _facts_. And, with something like climate
> science, we just dont have those, now, or for the foreseeable future.
> (AIUI)
But there are facts. For over 100 years, people have writing down the
readings from thermometers on bits of paper. I have seen photographs
of those bits of paper. All that needs to be done is to list those
readings in a computer accessable form, and get some statisticians to
analyse them. Keep the climate scientists away as they are not needed
and they don't know anything about statistics.
Sailor Sam
Awesome, got the records for the century before that?
What about the century before that?
hellicopter
Denial is cheap effective strategy when cheap credit is flooding the
economy and everyone is happily distracted. We're moving back to
normal, and may yet hit extreme times. Unless you accept the
financial crisis as a real crisis and our underperforming
elites can't change gear.
Any who. The point is that government provide grants and
expect scientists to produce worthy papers, they of course
need journals to be published in and so any strike by
reviewers of government backed research (or private)
is unlikely to get pulled. That's why alternative journals,
I think appeared, online. Where papers can be submitted
by less able reviewers.
But you see the major game is in the highly regarded
experts who have won academic or private positions.
It would be interesting to hear how Einstein, a patent
officer, managed to get published, did he have a problem.
A good idea is likely to get past a reviewer because
they wouldn't want to be the ass that stopped the next
Einstein. Its the dumb ideas that reviewers, I suspect,
have no problem dumping. Like any community you have to
be familiar with the work of others and reference them
to get cited, show you are capable of recognizing the
talent of others, be overly generous of their theories
before the knife of reason decimated their work.
The higher you regard them the more pleasurable the fall.
This is why a lot of denialists are just thugs,
since they aren't impressive with their praise, quite
the reverse, as if they need to attack the messager
because their message is so astonishingly weak.
Matty F
Don't need those. 30 or 40 years is enough to show that there is no
catastrophic global warming. There is no hockey stick.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
Now add into that the changes to the accuracy (and hence errors) that
has happened over the last 100 years. We also need to account for Mt St
Helens and other volcanic eruptions, etc etc etc
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Its OK- there were no climate change scientists when the statisticians
were collecting the huge amount of data about climate - up until the
last year at least.
Sailor Sam
> On Dec 29, 9:25 pm, Sailor Sam <hiho...@merry.oh> wrote:
>> Matty F wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 6:38 pm, Sailor Sam <hiho...@merry.oh> wrote:
>>>> I know climate science is raw at the moment, I agree, I also can think
>>>> of points in history (even recent history) where established science has
>>>> been orthogonal to facts, that were established much later.
>>>> But the only _true_ way to fight it, is not with all the bitching, and
>>>> finger pointing, but with _facts_. And, with something like climate
>>>> science, we just dont have those, now, or for the foreseeable future.
>>>> (AIUI)
>>> But there are facts. For over 100 years, people have writing down the
>>> readings from thermometers on bits of paper. I have seen photographs
>>> of those bits of paper. All that needs to be done is to list those
>>> readings in a computer accessable form, and get some statisticians to
>>> analyse them. Keep the climate scientists away as they are not needed
>>> and they don't know anything about statistics.
>> Awesome, got the records for the century before that?
>> What about the century before that?
>
> Don't need those.
So, you can tell from 100 years of data, that the last 100 years is the
same as the last 30 000????
Wow, you are good, for your next trick, how about showing us where the
big bang took place.
30 or 40 years is enough to show that there is no
> catastrophic global warming. There is no hockey stick.
ROFL.
Matty F
> Matty F wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 9:25 pm, Sailor Sam <hiho...@merry.oh> wrote:
> >> Matty F wrote:
> >>> On Dec 28, 6:38 pm, Sailor Sam <hiho...@merry.oh> wrote:
> >>>> I know climate science is raw at the moment, I agree, I also can think
> >>>> of points in history (even recent history) where established science has
> >>>> been orthogonal to facts, that were established much later.
> >>>> But the only _true_ way to fight it, is not with all the bitching, and
> >>>> finger pointing, but with _facts_. And, with something like climate
> >>>> science, we just dont have those, now, or for the foreseeable future.
> >>>> (AIUI)
> >>> But there are facts. For over 100 years, people have writing down the
> >>> readings from thermometers on bits of paper. I have seen photographs
> >>> of those bits of paper. All that needs to be done is to list those
> >>> readings in a computer accessable form, and get some statisticians to
> >>> analyse them. Keep the climate scientists away as they are not needed
> >>> and they don't know anything about statistics.
> >> Awesome, got the records for the century before that?
> >> What about the century before that?
>
> > Don't need those.
>
> So, you can tell from 100 years of data, that the last 100 years is the
> same as the last 30 000????
We can tell from tree rings and ice core sample and sediment records
what the climate has been for hundreds of thousands or millions of
years. Climate has varied an enormous amount in that time and humans
had absolutely nothing to do with it. The climate changed mainly
because of the irregular motion of the earth around the sun, but
sunspots and the odd asteroid or volcano also had an effect.
Humans cannot change any of those factors. However if a new ice age
arrived I imagine that we could sprinkle our unwanted carbon as soot
over the snow and ice, and it would melt.
> Wow, you are good, for your next trick, how about showing us where the
> big bang took place.
>
> 30 or 40 years is enough to show that there is no
>
> > catastrophic global warming. There is no hockey stick.
>
> ROFL.
You should read up on the fake "hockey stick" graphs.
This is a bit old after John Daly died, but it's still good:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Sailor Sam
That doesn't show whether the current climate is, or is not, being
affected by human activity.
> The climate changed mainly
> because of the irregular motion of the earth around the sun, but
> sunspots and the odd asteroid or volcano also had an effect.
>
Wash rinse repeat.
That doesn't show whether the current climate is, or is not, being
affected by human activity.
> Humans cannot change any of those factors. However if a new ice age
> arrived I imagine that we could sprinkle our unwanted carbon as soot
> over the snow and ice, and it would melt.
>
Wait a minute, I've been seeing people here, and on the web, claiming
those samples are unreliable, because they show that we are in a warming
period now unlike that ever seen before.
Now you're saying the data supports your mindset.
The thing is, you haven't, and nobody has as far as I can tell, shown
absolute facts on the current climate, and its relation to human
activity, one way or the other.
>> Wow, you are good, for your next trick, how about showing us where the
>> big bang took place.
>>
>> 30 or 40 years is enough to show that there is no
>>
>>> catastrophic global warming. There is no hockey stick.
>> ROFL.
>
> You should read up on the fake "hockey stick" graphs.
> This is a bit old after John Daly died, but it's still good:
> http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
I did. I also read that the science has been updated since then.
WorkHard
>> Matty F wrote:
>> You should read up on the fake "hockey stick" graphs.
>> This is a bit old after John Daly died, but it's still good:
>> http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
>
> I did. I also read that the science has been updated since
> then.
Updated? Translation = figures have been adjusted to suit
something or other.
The 'reality' is that no amount of adjustment to 'figures' can
change the reality. So how about something that truly reflects
reality?