Jan 22, 2024 10:39 PM
(This post was last modified: Jan 23, 2024 06:36 PM by C C.)
Just bribe everyone -- it's only scientific record
https://www.science.org/content/blog-pos...fic-record
EXCERPTS: When we last visited the lively, ever-evolving world of shady scientific publishing, we saw publication brokers offering journal editors kickbacks to push their papers into print, and here's plenty more about it in a new article here at Science.
[...] It's to the point where every journal publisher and every editor will tell you, if they're being honest, that they have been and are continually being offered bribes. I would be very suspicious if someone tried to act shocked at the question, as if they'd never heard of such a thing. This is the state of scientific publishing in the 2020s, and we have to realize it. What we don't have to do is accept it... (MORE - missing details)
Climate science gatekeeping
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/cli...atekeeping
EXCERPT: . . . Mann’s email reveals that he had contacted the editor of the journal to which we were submitting our paper and had directed him to assign our paper to hostile reviewers. Mann writes that he fully expected Famiglietti to obey his directive...
[...] Whether our paper should have been published or not is not the issue. At the time I chalked it up to bad luck, assuming we just randomly were assigned some angry reviewers, as the paper was pretty good.
We now know that it wasn’t just bad luck — A climate scientist intervened in the peer-reviewed publication process by requesting that an editor assign hostile reviewers such that the paper “won’t stand a chance.” The editor may or may not have followed Mann’s directive, as the identity of the reviewers is unknown — though from the style and content of the reviews it seems to me likely that he did.
An interesting postscript — later in 2007 well after our paper had been rejected, a short commentary on hurricanes appeared in the AGU periodical EOS. That commentary included a claim remarkably similar to the main thesis of our paper that was rejected by GRL, emphasis added below:
The lead author of that paper was Michael Mann, and his co-authors were Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland and Peter Webster — three of the four hostile reviewers he had directed the GRL editors to review our paper... (MORE - missing details)
https://www.science.org/content/blog-pos...fic-record
EXCERPTS: When we last visited the lively, ever-evolving world of shady scientific publishing, we saw publication brokers offering journal editors kickbacks to push their papers into print, and here's plenty more about it in a new article here at Science.
[...] It's to the point where every journal publisher and every editor will tell you, if they're being honest, that they have been and are continually being offered bribes. I would be very suspicious if someone tried to act shocked at the question, as if they'd never heard of such a thing. This is the state of scientific publishing in the 2020s, and we have to realize it. What we don't have to do is accept it... (MORE - missing details)
Climate science gatekeeping
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/cli...atekeeping
EXCERPT: . . . Mann’s email reveals that he had contacted the editor of the journal to which we were submitting our paper and had directed him to assign our paper to hostile reviewers. Mann writes that he fully expected Famiglietti to obey his directive...
[...] Whether our paper should have been published or not is not the issue. At the time I chalked it up to bad luck, assuming we just randomly were assigned some angry reviewers, as the paper was pretty good.
We now know that it wasn’t just bad luck — A climate scientist intervened in the peer-reviewed publication process by requesting that an editor assign hostile reviewers such that the paper “won’t stand a chance.” The editor may or may not have followed Mann’s directive, as the identity of the reviewers is unknown — though from the style and content of the reviews it seems to me likely that he did.
An interesting postscript — later in 2007 well after our paper had been rejected, a short commentary on hurricanes appeared in the AGU periodical EOS. That commentary included a claim remarkably similar to the main thesis of our paper that was rejected by GRL, emphasis added below:
However, the reported [hurricane] genesis locations are expanding eastward with time along with the greater rate of SST warming in the eastern portion of the tropical Atlantic.
The lead author of that paper was Michael Mann, and his co-authors were Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland and Peter Webster — three of the four hostile reviewers he had directed the GRL editors to review our paper... (MORE - missing details)