Comments on: Juckes Review http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/19/juckes-review/ by Steve McIntyre Mon, 20 May 2013 05:49:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Jean S http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/19/juckes-review/#comment-72897 Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:08:56 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=968#comment-72897 Martin Juckes has finally posted his comments/answers! What a wonderful rebuttal of all the points raised… no wonder it took almost two and half months to write those comments ;) Now, let’s see what the editor decides…

]]> By: Cliff Huston http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/19/juckes-review/#comment-72896 Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:44:08 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=968#comment-72896 #17: Willis had e-mail correspondence with the editor assigned to this paper, perhaps he will be kind enough to send a note asking the editor for the status.

Martin Juckes was glib enough when posting at CA, hard to imagine that he has had nothing to say during the author’s response period – I guess he has moved on . . . does MITRIE get a refund?.

Also, I’m still wondering what happened to the second CoP ‘referee’ – are peer reviewers often no shows?

]]> By: UC http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/19/juckes-review/#comment-72895 Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:13:01 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=968#comment-72895 Status of Burger and Cubasch paper is not ‘Closed’, only accepted papers get that status? BTW, Burger and Cubasch and Juckes et al. are most commented papers:

http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/ranking.html

]]> By: Jean S http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/19/juckes-review/#comment-72894 Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:03:48 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=968#comment-72894 Any idea what is the true status of the paper? The page still says “Status: Final Response (Author Comments only)”, but according to the COP rules:

6. Final Response. At the end of the open discussion the authors are asked to respond with final Author Comments. After 4 weeks (expandable to 8 weeks) or upon submission of a revised manuscript the final response phase is terminated, and the discussion paper and interactive comments are archived. Before submission of a revised manuscript for publication in CP, the authors are supposed to have answered the Referee Comments and relevant Short Comments cumulatively or individually.

It’s now 9 weeks since the open discussion was terminated.

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/19/juckes-review/#comment-72893 Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:04:32 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=968#comment-72893 #15. As I understand their process, the papers stay online. The Burger and Cubasch paper was rejected, but is still online. So I wouldn’t draw any conclusions.

]]> By: Cliff Huston http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/19/juckes-review/#comment-72892 Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:53:01 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=968#comment-72892 Yesterday marked the scheduled end of the Authors’ Final response period, for the Juckes et al 2006 paper at CoP. So far, no final response has been posted, nor is there any indication from the editor that a four week extension has been requested. Also, according to CoP description of the review process, there should be a minimum of two review referees, but only one has posted. Curious.

I’m beginning to wonder if this paper has been withdrawn and nobody has bothered to cleanup the CoP web page.

]]> By: Cliff Huston http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/19/juckes-review/#comment-72891 Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:57:30 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=968#comment-72891 In theory at least, the CoP discussion phase on Juckes et al 2006 closed yesterday. Seems odd that Referee #2 has not posted anything yet.

]]> By: per http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/19/juckes-review/#comment-72890 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:30:14 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=968#comment-72890 fantastic review.

It is going to be difficult for the editor. I don’t know if they usually get comment from outside people during review, and I don’t know how they will evaluate that comment. I could imagine that they might require the author to accomodate the comments of their “anonymous reviewers”, but merely leave the unsolicited comments as public commentary on the manuscript.

Fairly incisive commentary though. I suspect that the authors may feel traumatised.

per

]]> By: PHE http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/19/juckes-review/#comment-72889 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:51:25 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=968#comment-72889 The paper and reviews make an entertaining read. Juckes et al so blatantly tow the ‘consensus’ line, but appear to believe that saying the right words is an adequate alternative to good science and balanced criticism. Anonymous Reviewer No.1 is presumably flattered, but so embarassed by association that he feels obliged to criticise the paper, albeit by claiming we should ignore it in favour of other papers yet to be published! As another has indicated, Steve’s comments by comparison are devastating, thorough and astute.

]]> By: Gerald Machnee http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/19/juckes-review/#comment-72888 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:06:32 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=968#comment-72888 Once upon a time some of us would discuss promotions around coffee. How do you get one? We came up with some – You walk around with computer cards(this was later replaced by floppies and CD’s); write at least one paper, then have someone reference it, then you write more and reference it again, etc.

]]>