In ClimateGate emails

'Kevin and I will keep them out even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is'

In another e-mail Phil Jones suggests reviewers

"All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

"I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Michael Mann

"If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

"The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Another editor of Remote Sensing was forced to resign and publish an apology for allowing a paper by Roy Spencer through.

We aren't suggesting that peer review is bad. We are suggesting that those who believe that things that are peer reviewed are necessarily right are deluded. Gary F seems to be suggesting that if criminals are caught then that must mean no crimes have been committed and there's no reason to suspect that there were ever any other crimes or that there would be in the future. What this article shows is that peer review is just that, a review by peers, and usually like minded peers. In the case of Mann the peer review process was a joke yet he provided alarmists what they wanted so he was help up as a hero.

As a state registered professional geologist, I review reports all the time. Sometimes I find commas missing or no spaces. Sometimes, such as yesterday, there was a wrong lab report which was actually kind of hard to spot. It was a lab report with hydrocarbon vapor concentrations from a nearby site with the same names on the samples. Sometimes you have to change the whole thing but honestly I try to give the other geologist(s) the benefit of doubt and even if I don't necessarily agree, if it can be argued, I will sign off the report for them. I don't claim to have all the right answers. If peer reviewers had a different attitude, I think they might as well right the report themselves.

Gary, I can sign reports because I am a professional geologist and they rule the roost in California environmental field which you would know if you live in California which I thought you said you did. You can't sign anything except piddly little garbage. That is unless you are a regulator. If you are, that explains a lot and it explains why you believe as you do. I also give my fellow scientist the respect they deserve. Since you are slow witted, I will spell it out for you. The reviewer respects the person whose paper is being reviewed so he gives him wide latitude. That is the point. I don't knit pick every thing my fellow geologists say as long as they have a good reason for believing as they do. I don't always agree but unless I want to write it myself, why shouldn't I respect their opinion?

As with any process the first question should be: "What is it for?"

I don't know the answer to that. I can see that having people look through your work should help to improve the quality but I expect that most papers have already been read by several scientists (the authors, for instance) prior to peer review. What extra are these other scientists supposed to be adding?

Why not let anyone publish what they want and do away with peer review? I did hear a rumour that not all disciplines use it anyway (true?). Certainly, many of the famous papers of the past were not peer reviewed. There may have been a point to it when communications were difficult and copies of papers had to be ordered from your library and snail-mailed about the world. Having a lot of rubbish published would have been an unnecessary burden.

Now, with the Internet, I see no reason to hold papers back for any reason. If the authors are happy to publish fault-ridden rubbish then let them. Their reputation will adjust itself appropriately and so will the number of citations.

A downside of peer review is that it can be used for non-scientific purposes: gatekeeping, for instance. There was evidence of this in the Climategate emails.

The science journals probably have a vested interest in peer review. If publishing were easier then their services could probably be dispensed with. This is one of the reasons that the record companies do not like the Internet. The world would not end if either of these publishers went out of business - and they are businesses, remember. If it happened then things would change. Some changes would be for the better and some would not.

None of this surprises me. There are always going to be people who try to game the system. The peer review process is less used to people working this hard to game the system, so they don't have as many checks in place, but I don't think this is really a black-eye for the peer review process.

I have never really had a problem with the peer-review process. I think it works and does what it is intended to do. BUT, people should be aware that the peer review process does not rerun analysis, reanalyze results and certainly does not try to duplicate the results.

The value in a journal article is NOT that it went through peer review. Its true value is seen when the results are duplicated and used in further research.

Peer review is a pain. But it's kind of like Churchill's famous quote on democracy:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

No review at all is not possible, there will always be editorial review at the very least. Peer review is far from perfect, but I think it helps tremendously, and the idea that others would have closely read a paper before submission is naive, at the very least.

I think most people in here that have not had papers peer reviewed have a very poor understanding of what it is and what it's supposed to accomplish.

It's hard for me to understand how anyone--even someone like Sagebrush--would take pleasure in hearing of a peer review scandal. Sagebrush, do you also enjoy hearing about corrupt police? If it were found that some very low percentage of police were breaking the law, would that be a good reason for getting rid of them entirely?

Isn't it interesting how all of the AGW deniers think that peer review is a bad idea, and all of the folks that are concerned about global warming think it's a good idea. One would think that some here don't like the idea that anyone else could reject their views, while others here think that having worthless ideas strained out is a good idea.

graphicconception: "Why not let anyone publish what they want and do away with peer review?"

That's what yahoo answers is for.

If you were looking for honest info on AGW, is it where you'd look first?

How much would you pay to read it?

$100? $200? More?

I don't think so.

Free is what you get when you let anyone post their prejudice.

One does wonder, how many of the AGW deniers around here would submit rants to "scientific" journals if they thought they'd get published. That's what Vanity Press is for. "You pay us and we'll print anything you like."

Concerning your complaint, there's no indication that even the "ring" suppressed articles. Apparently their only intent was to get their own articles published. And, as a condemnation of the peer review process, it would seem this is the ONLY TIME that something like this has occurred. Interestingly, the internet is what made it possible. I don't think that JVC will change, other than institute a more rigorous process to identify reviewers.

This is what you get when you let anyone post anything.