R.I.P. Science and Journalism.

[8537]

Clearly you are either extraordinarily ignorant of the corruption of the peer review process by the "team" as they are referred to, or most likely you don't care. Either way, you are aiding and abetting scientific fraud by your inactivity.

oh please. just shut up. I am both intimately familiar with the peer review process and I also happen to care. Your attempt to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you speaks volumes about why you might have issues with getting published and the peer review process.

I never attempt to dismiss anyone who's opinions are different then mine.

LoL...of course not. Not you! Let's review:

Clearly you are either extraordinarily ignorant of the corruption of the peer review process by the "team" as they are referred to, or most likely you don't care. Either way, you are aiding and abetting scientific fraud by your inactivity.

Yes indeed, that's not attacking someone you know nothing about, nor is it attempting to undermine their facts or dismiss their point of view. It's just regular old, respectable discussion!

I do however wish to hear what they have to say. You have said that there was no attempt by the climatologists to prevent publication of dissenting papers.

No, I didn't say that. I asked how that is possible? Do these dissenters not have access to their own peer-review process and ability to create their own journal as our university institute did?

 

[Si modo]

....

....
I do however wish to hear what they have to say. You have said that there was no attempt by the climatologists to prevent publication of dissenting papers.

No, I didn't say that. I asked how that is possible? Do these dissenters not have access to their own peer-review process and ability to create their own journal as our university institute did?

They aren't really "dissenters" (although they are treated as such), they are scientists doing science. It is possible and it was done. Two ways it was done: (1) When an author presents a paper for review, s/he can recommend reviewers if asked, or if the editors know typical reviewers, they will ask them. The typical reviewers refuse to review, and/or collude to reject. The email convos (from hacking and FOIA) demonstrate the latter being done on several occasions. (2) When the editor in chief is one of the bad boys, he will still reject the paper (rather obvious, though) or coerce reviewers to reject it. The email convos (from hacking and from FOIA) demonstrate the latter being done on several occasions.

 

[westwall]

oh please. just shut up. I am both intimately familiar with the peer review process and I also happen to care. Your attempt to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you speaks volumes about why you might have issues with getting published and the peer review process.

I never attempt to dismiss anyone who's opinions are different then mine.

LoL...of course not. Not you! Let's review:

Clearly you are either extraordinarily ignorant of the corruption of the peer review process by the "team" as they are referred to, or most likely you don't care. Either way, you are aiding and abetting scientific fraud by your inactivity.

Yes indeed, that's not attacking someone you know nothing about, nor is it attempting to undermine their facts or dismiss their point of view. It's just regular old, respectable discussion!

I do however wish to hear what they have to say. You have said that there was no attempt by the climatologists to prevent publication of dissenting papers.

No, I didn't say that. I asked how that is possible? Do these dissenters not have access to their own peer-review process and ability to create their own journal as our university institute did?

I stated a fact. You were unaware of the "issues" surrounding the peer review process as regars the climatology field. You then denigrated the scientists who have been prevented from publishing in nearly every journal that deals with climatology. You then make the leap that they should just start their own journal like your uni did.

The problem of course being, who would listen to them. The MSM is in the pocket of the AGW supporters (clearly demonstrated in dozens of emails) so how exactly does the word get out? Anthony Watts has an excellent blog that has done extremely good work showing through guest posts just how screwed up the data was. ALL climatologists who support AGW however refer to Watt's website with the same derision that they reserve for oil company executives and pedophiles.

It is you who are not aware of these issues and you attempt to justify the corruption of the peer review process. Not myself. Therefore it is YOU who need to either get up to speed on the subject or admit you don't care.

 

[8537]

....

....
I do however wish to hear what they have to say. You have said that there was no attempt by the climatologists to prevent publication of dissenting papers.

No, I didn't say that. I asked how that is possible? Do these dissenters not have access to their own peer-review process and ability to create their own journal as our university institute did?

They aren't really "dissenters" (although they are treated as such), they are scientists doing science.

Their opinion is in dissent from the majority opinion. That makes them dissenters - just like the 4 judges' dissenting opinion in a 5-4 decision.

It is possible and it was done. Two ways it was done: (1) When an author presents a paper for review, s/he can recommend reviewers if asked, or if the editors know typical reviewers, they will ask them. The typical reviewers refuse to review, and/or collude to reject. The email convos (from hacking and FOIA) demonstrate the latter being done on several occasions. (2) When the editor in chief is one of the bad boys, he will still reject the paper (rather obvious, though) or coerce reviewers to reject it. The email convos (from hacking and from FOIA) demonstrate the latter being done on several occasions.

again, there is more than one journal in the world. If dissenters want to publish dissenting views they are free to create their own journals. It's not hard (And as I've mentioned, an institute on our campus did just that). Then they can peer-review and publish at will.

and I don't know how the process works in those specific sciences, but in my field the peer-review process is often blind. The author has no knowledge of who is doing the review and no say in choosing. But that's up to the journal.

 

[Si modo]

It is possible and it was done. Two ways it was done: (1) When an author presents a paper for review, s/he can recommend reviewers if asked, or if the editors know typical reviewers, they will ask them. The typical reviewers refuse to review, and/or collude to reject. The email convos (from hacking and FOIA) demonstrate the latter being done on several occasions. (2) When the editor in chief is one of the bad boys, he will still reject the paper (rather obvious, though) or coerce reviewers to reject it. The email convos (from hacking and from FOIA) demonstrate the latter being done on several occasions.

again, there is more than one journal in the world. If dissenters want to publish dissenting views they are free to create their own journals. It's not hard (And as I've mentioned, an institute on our campus did just that). Then they can peer-review and publish at will.

Well, of course they can. All that prestige associated with a young home grown journal compared to those who have been around for 50+ years is just wonderful.

Irrespective of that, the fact that you see nothing wrong with the currency of knowledge dissemination in science - peer-review - says quite a bit about how much you value scientific integrity compared to promoting a belief.

....

Their opinion is in dissent from the majority opinion. That makes them dissenters - just like the 4 judges' dissenting opinion in a 5-4 decision.

....

Science is not done, nor is it decided, by vote. Just so you know.

 

[8537]

It is possible and it was done. Two ways it was done: (1) When an author presents a paper for review, s/he can recommend reviewers if asked, or if the editors know typical reviewers, they will ask them. The typical reviewers refuse to review, and/or collude to reject. The email convos (from hacking and FOIA) demonstrate the latter being done on several occasions. (2) When the editor in chief is one of the bad boys, he will still reject the paper (rather obvious, though) or coerce reviewers to reject it. The email convos (from hacking and from FOIA) demonstrate the latter being done on several occasions.

again, there is more than one journal in the world. If dissenters want to publish dissenting views they are free to create their own journals. It's not hard (And as I've mentioned, an institute on our campus did just that). Then they can peer-review and publish at will.

Well, of course they can. All that prestige associated with a young home grown journal compared to those who have been around for 50+ years is just wonderful.

Every journal started as a young journal. With the right contributors, they can gain cache fairly quickly.

Irrespective of that, the fact that you see nothing wrong with the currency of knowledge dissemination in science - peer-review - says quite a bit about how much you value scientific integrity compared to promoting a belief.

I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by that. Who said I see nothing wrong with the peer review process? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Where did you get that idea? And how does it say anything about what I value? You need to read what I wrote, not what you interpret my writings to mean based on your own biases.

Science is not done, nor is it decided, by vote. Just so you know.

Eh, really? Thanks for that information.

 

[westwall]

....

No, I didn't say that. I asked how that is possible? Do these dissenters not have access to their own peer-review process and ability to create their own journal as our university institute did?

Their opinion is in dissent from the majority opinion. That makes them dissenters - just like the 4 judges' dissenting opinion in a 5-4 decision.

It is possible and it was done. Two ways it was done: (1) When an author presents a paper for review, s/he can recommend reviewers if asked, or if the editors know typical reviewers, they will ask them. The typical reviewers refuse to review, and/or collude to reject. The email convos (from hacking and FOIA) demonstrate the latter being done on several occasions. (2) When the editor in chief is one of the bad boys, he will still reject the paper (rather obvious, though) or coerce reviewers to reject it. The email convos (from hacking and from FOIA) demonstrate the latter being done on several occasions.

again, there is more than one journal in the world. If dissenters want to publish dissenting views they are free to create their own journals. It's not hard (And as I've mentioned, an institute on our campus did just that). Then they can peer-review and publish at will.

and I don't know how the process works in those specific sciences, but in my field the peer-review process is often blind. The author has no knowledge of who is doing the review and no say in choosing. But that's up to the journal.

Here is an example of the poor state of peer review within the world of climatology. Can you point out what is wrong here?







“Reviewer A” responds

Posted on February 10, 2011by Anthony Watts


The row over the issue of Antarctica warming continues. After a number of articles appeared at the Air Vent, Lucia’s, and Climate Audit, Dr. Steig responds at RealClimate with some accusations of his own. I offered Dr. Steig a guest post here, with no caveats, so that he could get maximum exposure, twice. He didn’t bother to respond.

This whole incident illustrates exactly why authors of competing scientific papers should not be reviewers of other papers critical of their own. This failure of peer review falls squarely into the lap of the Journal of Climate for allowing such nonsense in the first place.



But IMHO, Dr. Steig bears responsibility too, he should have said “no”, realizing what a conflict of interest this was.

He confirms in the latest RealClimate essay that he was in fact “Reviewer A”. He also complains that he wasn’t allowed to see the final draft. This is due to the fact that JoC had to bring in another reviewer to break the 88 page log jam created by “Reviewer A”.

The analysis of the difference between the 3rd and 4th (final) drafts at Climate Audit reveal this:


MrPete

Posted Feb 9, 2011 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

Here is a comparison of Rev 3 and Rev 4. All text changes are marked up — including totally minor changes. I hope this works for the reader. (Personally, I would primarily trust this to provide pointers to areas of change as it is not obvious how to reliably discern exactly what the old/new text was.)

To my admittedly inexperienced eyes, the changes appear relatively minor.

Perhaps one of the authors can speak authoritatively on a) whether Wm C’s question (about round 4 reviews) has any standing, and b) whether Eric Steig’s disclaimer (based on not having seen these changes) is appropriate.

So it seems Dr. Steig’s complaint is empty, and the situation mostly a result of his own doings. Still it points back to the failure of peer review at JoC. They should not have invited Dr. Steig to be a reviewer in the first place. had they not, this whole ugly row would be non-existent."


“Reviewer A” responds | Watts Up With That?

 

[Si modo]

again, there is more than one journal in the world. If dissenters want to publish dissenting views they are free to create their own journals. It's not hard (And as I've mentioned, an institute on our campus did just that). Then they can peer-review and publish at will.

Well, of course they can. All that prestige associated with a young home grown journal compared to those who have been around for 50+ years is just wonderful.

Every journal started as a young journal. With the right contributors, they can gain cache fairly quickly.

....

OK. Of course prestige of journal and large circulation is irrelevant to authors.

Irrespective of that, the fact that you see nothing wrong with the currency of knowledge dissemination in science - peer-review - says quite a bit about how much you value scientific integrity compared to promoting a belief.

I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by that. Who said I see nothing wrong with the peer review process? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Where did you get that idea? And how does it say anything about what I value? You need to read what I wrote, not what you interpret my writings to mean based on your own biases.

You asked how the peer-review process can be corrupted, I answered how it can be, and how it actually WAS corrupted. I also mentioned that the peer-review process is the currency of dissemination of scientific knowledge. That means that the only information about science that has any value in science is peer-reviewed information.

What is unclear to you?

Science is not done, nor is it decided, by vote. Just so you know.

Eh, really? Thanks for that information.

Oh. Well, I was understanding that we were talking about science, here. So, when you brought that up, obviously you were talking about something other than science.

 

[8537]

Their opinion is in dissent from the majority opinion. That makes them dissenters - just like the 4 judges' dissenting opinion in a 5-4 decision.



again, there is more than one journal in the world. If dissenters want to publish dissenting views they are free to create their own journals. It's not hard (And as I've mentioned, an institute on our campus did just that). Then they can peer-review and publish at will.

and I don't know how the process works in those specific sciences, but in my field the peer-review process is often blind. The author has no knowledge of who is doing the review and no say in choosing. But that's up to the journal.

Here is an example of the poor state of peer review within the world of climatology. Can you point out what is wrong here?







“Reviewer A” responds

Posted on February 10, 2011by Anthony Watts


The row over the issue of Antarctica warming continues. After a number of articles appeared at the Air Vent, Lucia’s, and Climate Audit, Dr. Steig responds at RealClimate with some accusations of his own. I offered Dr. Steig a guest post here, with no caveats, so that he could get maximum exposure, twice. He didn’t bother to respond.

This whole incident illustrates exactly why authors of competing scientific papers should not be reviewers of other papers critical of their own. This failure of peer review falls squarely into the lap of the Journal of Climate for allowing such nonsense in the first place.



But IMHO, Dr. Steig bears responsibility too, he should have said “no”, realizing what a conflict of interest this was.

He confirms in the latest RealClimate essay that he was in fact “Reviewer A”. He also complains that he wasn’t allowed to see the final draft. This is due to the fact that JoC had to bring in another reviewer to break the 88 page log jam created by “Reviewer A”.

The analysis of the difference between the 3rd and 4th (final) drafts at Climate Audit reveal this:


MrPete

Posted Feb 9, 2011 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

Here is a comparison of Rev 3 and Rev 4. All text changes are marked up — including totally minor changes. I hope this works for the reader. (Personally, I would primarily trust this to provide pointers to areas of change as it is not obvious how to reliably discern exactly what the old/new text was.)

To my admittedly inexperienced eyes, the changes appear relatively minor.

Perhaps one of the authors can speak authoritatively on a) whether Wm C’s question (about round 4 reviews) has any standing, and b) whether Eric Steig’s disclaimer (based on not having seen these changes) is appropriate.

So it seems Dr. Steig’s complaint is empty, and the situation mostly a result of his own doings. Still it points back to the failure of peer review at JoC. They should not have invited Dr. Steig to be a reviewer in the first place. had they not, this whole ugly row would be non-existent."


“Reviewer A” responds | Watts Up With That?

I can point to a host of things that are "wrong", nevermind the complete lack of context for what you are asking me to assess.

The biggest problem is the journal not recognizing it's own internal conflict of interest. The next problem is a reviewer claiming that people with published opposing viewpoints should not be permitted to review.

 

[westwall]

Well, of course they can. All that prestige associated with a young home grown journal compared to those who have been around for 50+ years is just wonderful.

Every journal started as a young journal. With the right contributors, they can gain cache fairly quickly.

....

OK. Of course prestige of journal and large circulation is irrelevant to authors.

You asked how the peer-review process can be corrupted, I answered how it can be, and how it actually WAS corrupted. I also mentioned that the peer-review process is the currency of dissemination of scientific knowledge. That means that the only information about science that has any value in science is peer-reviewed information.

What is unclear to you?

Science is not done, nor is it decided, by vote. Just so you know.

Eh, really? Thanks for that information.

Oh. Well, I was understanding that we were talking about science, here. So, when you brought that up, obviously you were talking about something other than science.

I wonder what the name of his universities journal is......and if anyone has even heard of it.

 

[8537]

Well, of course they can. All that prestige associated with a young home grown journal compared to those who have been around for 50+ years is just wonderful.

Every journal started as a young journal. With the right contributors, they can gain cache fairly quickly.

....

OK. Of course prestige of journal and large circulation is irrelevant to authors.

If the choice is "don't get published" and "get published in a new peer-reviewed journal that is building credibility for a dissenting opinion", why would they chose not to get published?

You asked how the peer-review process can be corrupted, I answered how it can be, and how it actually WAS corrupted. I also mentioned that the peer-review process is the currency of dissemination of scientific knowledge. That means that the only information about science that has any value in science is peer-reviewed information.

What is unclear to you?

No, you're making shit up and not reading what I wrote. I said that authors can not be prevented from publishing dissenting opinions. They can't.

Anyone is welcome to create their own journal - peer-reviewed or otherwise. and it can be done for next to nothing and, with the right authors, can quickly gain credibility.

 

[Si modo]

Here is an example of the poor state of peer review within the world of climatology. Can you point out what is wrong here?







“Reviewer A” responds

Posted on February 10, 2011by Anthony Watts


The row over the issue of Antarctica warming continues. After a number of articles appeared at the Air Vent, Lucia’s, and Climate Audit, Dr. Steig responds at RealClimate with some accusations of his own. I offered Dr. Steig a guest post here, with no caveats, so that he could get maximum exposure, twice. He didn’t bother to respond.

This whole incident illustrates exactly why authors of competing scientific papers should not be reviewers of other papers critical of their own. This failure of peer review falls squarely into the lap of the Journal of Climate for allowing such nonsense in the first place.



But IMHO, Dr. Steig bears responsibility too, he should have said “no”, realizing what a conflict of interest this was.

He confirms in the latest RealClimate essay that he was in fact “Reviewer A”. He also complains that he wasn’t allowed to see the final draft. This is due to the fact that JoC had to bring in another reviewer to break the 88 page log jam created by “Reviewer A”.

The analysis of the difference between the 3rd and 4th (final) drafts at Climate Audit reveal this:


MrPete

Posted Feb 9, 2011 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

Here is a comparison of Rev 3 and Rev 4. All text changes are marked up — including totally minor changes. I hope this works for the reader. (Personally, I would primarily trust this to provide pointers to areas of change as it is not obvious how to reliably discern exactly what the old/new text was.)

To my admittedly inexperienced eyes, the changes appear relatively minor.

Perhaps one of the authors can speak authoritatively on a) whether Wm C’s question (about round 4 reviews) has any standing, and b) whether Eric Steig’s disclaimer (based on not having seen these changes) is appropriate.

So it seems Dr. Steig’s complaint is empty, and the situation mostly a result of his own doings. Still it points back to the failure of peer review at JoC. They should not have invited Dr. Steig to be a reviewer in the first place. had they not, this whole ugly row would be non-existent."


“Reviewer A” responds | Watts Up With That?

I can point to a host of things that are "wrong", nevermind the complete lack of context for what you are asking me to assess.

The biggest problem is the journal not recognizing it's own internal conflict of interest. The next problem is a reviewer claiming that people with published opposing viewpoints should not be permitted to review.

Obviously from the text, it's not that he has an opposing viewpoint, it's his clear conflict of interest, and his actions only cement that. Anyone who has reviewed knows that a review is only about two pages (five, maximum). He wrote 88 pages of empty comments. Because of that, he effectively held back publication for quite a long time. It's reminiscent of a congressman reading the entire yellow pages to prevent passage of a bill.

Filibusters are not appropriate in peer-review, nor is promoting any agenda except good science.

 

[westwall]

Every journal started as a young journal. With the right contributors, they can gain cache fairly quickly.

....

OK. Of course prestige of journal and large circulation is irrelevant to authors.

If the choice is "don't get published" and "get published in a new peer-reviewed journal that is building credibility for a dissenting opinion", why would they chose not to get published?

You asked how the peer-review process can be corrupted, I answered how it can be, and how it actually WAS corrupted. I also mentioned that the peer-review process is the currency of dissemination of scientific knowledge. That means that the only information about science that has any value in science is peer-reviewed information.

What is unclear to you?

No, you're making shit up and not reading what I wrote. I said that authors can not be prevented from publishing dissenting opinions. They can't.

Anyone is welcome to create their own journal - peer-reviewed or otherwise. and it can be done for next to nothing and, with the right authors, can quickly gain credibility.

So, what's the name of your unis' journal?

 

[Si modo]

Every journal started as a young journal. With the right contributors, they can gain cache fairly quickly.

....

OK. Of course prestige of journal and large circulation is irrelevant to authors.

If the choice is "don't get published" and "get published in a new peer-reviewed journal that is building credibility for a dissenting opinion", why would they chose not to get published?

You asked how the peer-review process can be corrupted, I answered how it can be, and how it actually WAS corrupted. I also mentioned that the peer-review process is the currency of dissemination of scientific knowledge. That means that the only information about science that has any value in science is peer-reviewed information.

What is unclear to you?

No, you're making shit up and not reading what I wrote. I said that authors can not be prevented from publishing dissenting opinions. They can't.

Anyone is welcome to create their own journal - peer-reviewed or otherwise. and it can be done for next to nothing and, with the right authors, can quickly gain credibility.

You said authors cannot be prevented from publishing dissenting opinions? Well, if you had said that, I would have said that publishing of opinions is not subject to peer-review.

Now, publishing of science is. I told you exactly how that peer-review can be corrupted and I told you exactly how it was.

What is unclear to you?

 

[8537]

Every journal started as a young journal. With the right contributors, they can gain cache fairly quickly.

....

OK. Of course prestige of journal and large circulation is irrelevant to authors.

You asked how the peer-review process can be corrupted, I answered how it can be, and how it actually WAS corrupted. I also mentioned that the peer-review process is the currency of dissemination of scientific knowledge. That means that the only information about science that has any value in science is peer-reviewed information.

What is unclear to you?

Eh, really? Thanks for that information.

Oh. Well, I was understanding that we were talking about science, here. So, when you brought that up, obviously you were talking about something other than science.

I wonder what the name of his universities journal is......and if anyone has even heard of it.

Don't be stupid. The general public is typically familiar with exactly TWO peer-reviewed science Journals: Nature and Science.

The journal from our University has approximately 7000 cites and a Web of Science impact factor of over 3. It's not Nature, but it's far from unheard.

 

[8537]

Here is an example of the poor state of peer review within the world of climatology. Can you point out what is wrong here?







“Reviewer A” responds

Posted on February 10, 2011by Anthony Watts


The row over the issue of Antarctica warming continues. After a number of articles appeared at the Air Vent, Lucia’s, and Climate Audit, Dr. Steig responds at RealClimate with some accusations of his own. I offered Dr. Steig a guest post here, with no caveats, so that he could get maximum exposure, twice. He didn’t bother to respond.

This whole incident illustrates exactly why authors of competing scientific papers should not be reviewers of other papers critical of their own. This failure of peer review falls squarely into the lap of the Journal of Climate for allowing such nonsense in the first place.



But IMHO, Dr. Steig bears responsibility too, he should have said “no”, realizing what a conflict of interest this was.

He confirms in the latest RealClimate essay that he was in fact “Reviewer A”. He also complains that he wasn’t allowed to see the final draft. This is due to the fact that JoC had to bring in another reviewer to break the 88 page log jam created by “Reviewer A”.

The analysis of the difference between the 3rd and 4th (final) drafts at Climate Audit reveal this:


MrPete

Posted Feb 9, 2011 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

Here is a comparison of Rev 3 and Rev 4. All text changes are marked up — including totally minor changes. I hope this works for the reader. (Personally, I would primarily trust this to provide pointers to areas of change as it is not obvious how to reliably discern exactly what the old/new text was.)

To my admittedly inexperienced eyes, the changes appear relatively minor.

Perhaps one of the authors can speak authoritatively on a) whether Wm C’s question (about round 4 reviews) has any standing, and b) whether Eric Steig’s disclaimer (based on not having seen these changes) is appropriate.

So it seems Dr. Steig’s complaint is empty, and the situation mostly a result of his own doings. Still it points back to the failure of peer review at JoC. They should not have invited Dr. Steig to be a reviewer in the first place. had they not, this whole ugly row would be non-existent."


“Reviewer A” responds | Watts Up With That?

I can point to a host of things that are "wrong", nevermind the complete lack of context for what you are asking me to assess.

The biggest problem is the journal not recognizing it's own internal conflict of interest. The next problem is a reviewer claiming that people with published opposing viewpoints should not be permitted to review.

Obviously from the text, it's not that he has an opposing viewpoint, it's his clear conflict of interest, and his actions only cement that. Anyone who has reviewed knows that a review is only about two pages (five, maximum). He wrote 88 pages of empty comments. Because of that, he effectively held back publication for quite a long time. It's reminiscent of a congressman reading the entire yellow pages to prevent passage of a bill.

Filibusters are not appropriate in peer-review, nor is promoting any agenda except good science.

The information you provide here was not in the text presented by Westwall.

 

[Si modo]

Every journal started as a young journal. With the right contributors, they can gain cache fairly quickly.

....

OK. Of course prestige of journal and large circulation is irrelevant to authors.

You asked how the peer-review process can be corrupted, I answered how it can be, and how it actually WAS corrupted. I also mentioned that the peer-review process is the currency of dissemination of scientific knowledge. That means that the only information about science that has any value in science is peer-reviewed information.

What is unclear to you?

Eh, really? Thanks for that information.

Oh. Well, I was understanding that we were talking about science, here. So, when you brought that up, obviously you were talking about something other than science.

I wonder what the name of his universities journal is......and if anyone has even heard of it.

Obviously he believes that authors never, ever consider prestige or circulation volume when trying to get published.

I mean, a CV with 50 publications from uni "journals" is so much more impressive than 50 pubs in JACS, Science, Nature, etc., right? I honestly thinks he believes everyone is buying that.

 

[Si modo]

I can point to a host of things that are "wrong", nevermind the complete lack of context for what you are asking me to assess.

The biggest problem is the journal not recognizing it's own internal conflict of interest. The next problem is a reviewer claiming that people with published opposing viewpoints should not be permitted to review.

Obviously from the text, it's not that he has an opposing viewpoint, it's his clear conflict of interest, and his actions only cement that. Anyone who has reviewed knows that a review is only about two pages (five, maximum). He wrote 88 pages of empty comments. Because of that, he effectively held back publication for quite a long time. It's reminiscent of a congressman reading the entire yellow pages to prevent passage of a bill.

Filibusters are not appropriate in peer-review, nor is promoting any agenda except good science.

The information you provide here was not in the text presented by Westwall.

Ah, you're a denier.

 

[frazzledgear]

Oh look, Godwin's Law already.

That didn't take long.

Your arrogance gets in your way -and so much so it sure looks like you weren't even able to read my post without distorting it into something it wasn't and didn't do and negative repping me for it even! LOL In fact I think you must have negatively repped me for what someone else said -you accused me of mis-stating Godwin's Law in my post but I can't mis-state something I didn't state whatsoever in the first place.

I had to laugh when I saw you negatively repped me and took umbrage at something I didn't do at all. Your own arrogance got in the way of being able to comprehend the written word and must a real handicap in your life on a daily basis. So let's get the Godwin's Law out of the way first which is just some comedian's humorous remark that the longer a discussion goes on, the higher the probability that someone will end up being compared to Nazis or Hitler. So you saw the word "Nazi" in my post and your mind flew to Godwin's Law? Really?

No one was comparing ANYONE to Nazis or Hitler honey. Apparently you like to read a lot into stuff so you can get all huffy about stuff that was never said, huh. You must be a real kick to live with. I certainly was NOT comparing anyone, much less scientists, to Nazis.

Then you accused of me of showing condescension toward scientists. Where was that? Because while I agree my post DRIPPED with condescension alright - it wasn't toward scientists. It was all reserved for liberals who believe scientists exist in order to be politically exploited. Oh gee, how DID your "oh so brilliant scientist" mind miss that one? And while we are on it, do YOU think scientists who allow themselves to be exploited for political gain are DESERVING of respect? Really? Because I don't. Thank God that fortunately for science itself, that isn't the bulk of them. But for those who allow their political exploitation, conspire with it and profit from it -I wouldn't respect such people no matter what their careers happened to be. What's to respect about that?

You gave a link in a post to scientific papers, saying none showed any political statements. So what? The political exploitation by cooperating scientists wouldn't include any political statements in any of their papers, would it? Their part of the exploitation involves the manipulation of what THEY do -science. So I would expect to find very conveniently packaged "science" to support their political partners. And if you think that hasn't happened -then you are truly ignorant of history, including recent history. It HAPPENS -again, fortunately most scientists have a hell of a lot more integrity than that. But the notion they all do without exception is ridiculous. Less than honest, less than truthful, less than morally upright individuals exist in all fields -including science. If you want to deny that, then again, you are relying upon your own arrogance and not facts to even believe such a dumb thing.

I have a sister who is a microbiologist and while I love her dearly and she is my best friend, I am not under any illusion that merely being one has endowed her with any godlike qualities, it has not given her work one speck of godlike infallibility, it has not given her any "noble-like" crap that puts her above all others. I don't worship at the altar of her work. Scientists are just people who managed to find a job too -a job that makes them no better and no worse than anyone else -and neither is the quality of their work which includes the entire range from excellent to a pile of shit just like every other field of work on the planet! A microbiologist's opinion on an issue outside their field of work -like global warming -doesn't have any more weight than that of anyone else. It is outside their field of expertise. When people throw up statistics about how many and what percentage of scientists outside the field believe about global warming, evolution or any other scientific theory -it is totally irrelevant. It is offered up as if proof of the correctness of the theory -is that how YOUR "scientific" mind actually works? Scientific truth is not determined by a consensus or popularity contest. At times in history NOT ONE PERSON was right and at times thousands had it all wrong and only one person had it right. So let's stop the pretense that scientists hold truth by merely proposing a theory when that theory is to lay the groundwork for further investigation -not the end result!

Those who politically exploit science and those scientists who cooperate with it and join in -are in fact saying the theory itself is the end result and therefore "fact" -and it is a MONSTROUS LIE.

Science never requires our FAITH that it got it right -it must prove it to be right. Only religion requires faith -science NEVER. So I take issue with those who insist we treat scientists like gods -and the arrogant scientists who think they are -and take whatever their theory du jour happens to be as if it were proven fact when it by definition is NOT. As I said -fortunately for science itself, the majority of scientists do not fall among this small group.

But in my original post, my condescension was for those who believe the real role of scientists is their exploitation for political gain -in particular, liberals. So ...since you objected to my comments abut that, you think that is the proper role of scientists and science in society?????

I made several points using historical facts about the misuse of science and the political exploitation of scientists that resulted in causing great harm to millions. ACCURATE ones I might add -one of historic fact. Since I was discussing the misuse of science, then there are no historic examples of that occurring that are suddenly "off limits" or socially inappropriate to use as if it is a social faux pas like farting public or being caught picking your nose.

I pointed out the Soviet example of the political exploitation of science and I pointed out -ACCURATELY -that the Nazi justification for even conceiving the Holocaust was based on the scientific theory of eugenics. Perhaps your "brilliant" scientific mind did not realize this -but this is not a comparison, but a historic fact that perfectly exemplified the dangers of allowing the political exploitation of science. A pretty significant one by any measure. It was NOT a comment comparing scientists or anyone else to Nazis or Hitler. So I guess you have to be a "brilliant" scientist to see a comparison in there that didn't exist. I also pointed out the fact these were all done by leftists -and they were. Just because liberals would like to sweep that under the rug, all comments referencing historical facts about what the Nazis did -aren't comments trying to compare them to someone else. Just because you can't deal with honest assessments of historical facts and importance and think lobbing out a really, really stupid comment that doesn't apply in the least like "Godwin's Law" -doesn't mean no one else is able to discuss what Nazis used to justify their concept of the Holocaust and the extermination of society's "undesirables". That they did it and the grounds they used to rationalize it is a matter of HISTORY and a major example of exactly what I was talking about, isn't it? It is NOT something for you to go into a faux hissy fit as if because it involves Nazis who did it, it automatically means it is off limits as a discussion of how science and scientists were politically exploited in the past.

Again, the political exploitation for the purpose of gaining and expanding their power -is and always has been done by leftists and liberals. The same people who demand we all bow down and worship at the altar of science as if whatever theory they suddenly believe can be exploited for political gain must automatically be treated as "proven fact" and the end product of scientific discovery -when in fact a theory is only the groundwork for further investigation. An investigation that is highly likely to result in tossing the theory out -because that is the nature of scientific progress. The vast majority of all scientific theories as a result are wrong -but it is the process of weeding them out and finding the gem that remains that has and always will result in moving our understanding and knowledge of the natural world forward. No scientist has ever gotten it 100% correct right off the bat and you know you are being exploited when suddenly those who are not scientists but political activists, insist those scientists who would challenge that theory be punished for it as the new "heretics" deserving of being burned at the stake. Challenging that theory and trying to prove it incorrect -is how scientists end up proving any theory correct.

Seriously. Get over yourself -everyone else has.

 

[8537]

Obviously from the text, it's not that he has an opposing viewpoint, it's his clear conflict of interest, and his actions only cement that. Anyone who has reviewed knows that a review is only about two pages (five, maximum). He wrote 88 pages of empty comments. Because of that, he effectively held back publication for quite a long time. It's reminiscent of a congressman reading the entire yellow pages to prevent passage of a bill.

Filibusters are not appropriate in peer-review, nor is promoting any agenda except good science.

The information you provide here was not in the text presented by Westwall.

Ah, you're a denier.

no, I read what was posted. The information you just provided was not in the post.

That's not denial, it's fact.