tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post7329373495243574606..comments2024-03-01T18:36:20.048-08:00Comments on CanSpeccy: Some Climate Warming Skeptics Ready to Ditch the Second Law of ThermodynamicsCShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-57500320871606784332012-01-23T13:20:38.830-08:002012-01-23T13:20:38.830-08:00At one time, papers for publication by PNAS were &...At one time, papers for publication by PNAS were "communicated" by a member, the communicating members acting as the Editors of the particular papers that they "communicated." That practice ended in July 2010.<br /><br />To <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15518.full" rel="nofollow">quote from PNAS.org</a>:<br /><br /><i>PNAS has a nearly 100-year history of scientific publishing that is governed by principles established by George Ellery Hale in 1914, which include publication of work by a nonmember that appears to an NAS member to be of particular importance. Until 1995, the majority of papers published in PNAS were authored by nonmembers whose work was “Communicated” by an NAS member who believed the work to be of sufficient significance to warrant publication in the Academy's journal. Many such papers were landmarks in their field, such as the 1950 paper by John Nash (1) that described a principle now known as the Nash equilibrium, the 1977 discovery of split genes and RNA splicing by Phillip Sharp (2), and the 1979 finding by Hershko et al. of the ATP-dependent proteolytic system responsible for protein degradation (3).<br /><br />In 1995 PNAS Editor-in-Chief Nicholas R. Cozzarelli introduced the option of “Direct Submission” by authors, both members and nonmembers. Manuscripts submitted directly to the PNAS office that pass initial screening by the Editorial Board (now comprised of 167 NAS members) are anonymously peer-reviewed by experts in the field of the paper, and the final decision on publication is made by an NAS member. This option has enjoyed enormous success, growing from 31 submissions in 1995 to 10,573 in 2008.</i><br /><br />The procedure formerly used by PNAS, was at one time the standard method of vetting papers for publication in virtually all scholarly journals: i.e., a person of distinction in the field decided what was worth publishing, a rather different and perhaps superior method to that of peer review, under which even the poorest papers usually get published eventually, if not by the first, the second, or third journal to which they are serially submitted, then by the nth journal. <br /><br />Often editors of the old school took their responsibilities very seriously. For example, when, in 1871, Flix Hoppe-Seyler received Friedrich Miescher's paper reporting the presence of an organic phosphorus containing compound in puss cells from hospital bandages, a substance later identified as DNA, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Miescher" rel="nofollow">Hoppe-Seyler repeated Miescher's experiments</a> before publishing the paper. <br /><br />Such commitment is, I would say, rarely to be found among peer reviewers, who acting anonymously, do not place their reputation at stake when deciding the fate of a paper for publication. <br /><br />Sure, PNAS has published some oddball papers. Many have assigned <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/71/11/4442.full.pdf" rel="nofollow">Linus Pauling's 1974 vitamin C paper</a> in that category. But as Pauling is, so far, the only US citizen to win two unshared Nobel prizes, and would probably have won a third had the US government not withdrawn his passport at the time that, in England, Wilkins and associates were sharing their DNA crystallographic data with visitors*, who can really say that that paper lacked scientific merit. I read it at the time of publication and thought it demonstrated an eminently sensibly indirect way of assessing the possible optimum daily intake of a vitamin -- a quantity that cannot be determined by direct measurement of dose-response relationships. <br /><br />* (Pauling was considered to be the World's greatest crystallographer, who would surely have beaten Watson and Crick to the discovery of the DNA double helix if he had had the same access as Watson and Crick to Wilkins X-ray diffraction data.)CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-76707048534496826392012-01-23T12:10:16.906-08:002012-01-23T12:10:16.906-08:00A point worth bearing in mind about PNAS is that m...A point worth bearing in mind about PNAS is that members (of the National Academy of Sciences) can submit papers of their own under a softer procedure than standard peer review. Under the present rules they can select two 'reviewers' of their own choice, and in the past I think the scrutiny was even weaker. The result was that elderly and eccentric retired scientists could get things published that would never have passed normal peer review.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-62475367668295820962012-01-20T21:40:53.430-08:002012-01-20T21:40:53.430-08:00"How many peer reviewed papers has CanSpeccy ..."How many peer reviewed papers has CanSpeccy had published?"<br /><br />Several dozen. The last in 1990. That paper has been cited in the literature 232 times, according to Google Scholar.<br /><br />You say peer review comes after publication. In a sense that is correct. But when people speak of peer review in connection with scholarly publishing, they are speaking about review by peers as a basis for an editor's judgment on suitability of a contribution for publication.<br /><br />Your rant about Michael Mann may be have a valid basis, but seems hardly relevant. I mentioned Prof. Boehmer-Christianson, because she was editor of the journal that published the Jelbring paper. In the context, it would have been absurd to criticize the editors of a different journal.<br /><br />You say that Prof. Boehmer-Christianson "certainly appears to be more competent and careful than the PNAS reviewers and editor." <br /><br />It does not seem that way to me. PNAS has published thousands of important papers and is among the ten most cited journals in the World, which is a lot more than you can say of Energy and Environment. <br /><br />Sure PNAS may have published some poor, or totally fraudulent papers. But there is no certain editorial test of validity, which means that every journal's screening procedure is fallible. <br /><br />You say: "The real problem is the cowed and intimidated group of climate journals, which appear to be Michael Mann's tamed pets."<br /><br />LOL. <br /><br />If you are correct in your characterization, that is certainly a problem. But it is evident from the Editorial Board membership of Energy and Environment that any bias among climate science journal editors is not all the same way.CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-62751605726715389532012-01-20T19:13:47.123-08:002012-01-20T19:13:47.123-08:00How many peer reviewed papers has CanSpeccy had pu...How many peer reviewed papers has CanSpeccy had published? Does he possess a climate CV?<br /><br />I do not ask this to denigrate, but rather as a lede: peer review comes after publication, not in publication. But journals have the responsibility to do at least basic fact-checking.<br /><br />The formal hypothesis is usually contained in the published paper. For example, in Mann08, Dr. Michael Mann published a paper based primarily on a corrupted proxy (Tiljander), which was upside down due to overturned lake sediments, eutrophication, and road construction.<br /><br />If that supposedly reputable journal (PNAS) had done minimal investigation, its reviewers would have found that Dr. Tiljander had notified Dr. Mann <i>prior to publication</i> that her proxy was corrupted after 1720. Mann published anyway!<br /><br />Yet the criticism here seems to focus primarily on Prof. Boehmer-Christianson, who certainly appears to be more competent and careful than the PNAS reviewers and editor.<br /><br />CanSpeccy adds: "None of which proves that Jelbring's hypothesis is unquestionably wrong." Thus, publishing Dr. Jelbring's hypothesis has merit, even if it is ultimately falsified. That is as it should be. Dr. Boehmer-Christianson did nothing wrong in accepting the paper for publication, whereas PNAS erred.<br /><br />The real problem is the cowed and intimidated group of climate journals, which appear to be Michael Mann's tamed pets. It looks like they are too frightened to reject a Michael Mann paper, even when it is based upon a known corrupted proxy.Mogumbo Gonohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03410052816886887484noreply@blogger.com