Just read this

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439

I truly believe that the peer review system has good intentions but, like anything else, is subject to human error, abuse or neglect. The Physics scandal involving Schon is one such example of fraud slipping through the review system. The system is far from infallible but it is all have have right now.

Kano.. have you ever tried publishing in reputable science journals? Anyone who's actually done so knows the process you know nothing about. Thousands of papers are reviewed by thousands of scientists, you find one in a blog about a problem with open access(not main Journals) and it's a scandal? Get real.

I published two climate papers this year, and believe me, the peer review was no joke for either one. This article you link was not even about climate.

Why don't you and Ottawa Mike find someone else to insult, especially when you don't know what you're talking about? Or better yet, why don't you write a climate paper yourself that is pro-AGW and submit it to a journal, and find it for yourself just how easy peer review is.

In the atmospheric sciences, more than a third of papers are rejected.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1...

Well this is a blog which you DA deniers think is fact although many of them are pure BSI see multiple mention of Science Is this a professional journal??? If so where is a link to it??? Without that, you are merely standing on thin ice with nothing to back you up

BTW you din't really ask a question, you made a statement with a question mark at the end

WOW - I am so appalled

Here is your big chance : from the most current IPCC Synthesis report (you know , the one you never bothered to read) which papers :

(i) Were subject to dodgy peer review?

(ii) Contained fraudulent information?

(iii) Were written by scientists who demonstrably lied?

It should be very easy for you - you wouldnt make such slanderous comments without evidence , now would you?

Incidentally - I can think of several scientific papers of "dubious" repute :

- papers written by Cuban scientists about benefits of policosanol

- papers written to prove benefits of intercessory prayer (the good folk who proved it all faked the evidence)

- Andrew Wakefield's 1998 paper on MMR

Sounds like sour grapes to me

Just read this

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439