Comments on: Regular and "Special Decisions"

By: Spendulus

Spendulus — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:53:52 +0000

What ever hapopened on this “Special Decision”?

By: Mike Lorrey

Mike Lorrey — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 06:27:10 +0000

Thats one way for Team members to keep skeptics from publishing, refuse to review their submissions. Blackballing worked in Hollywood.

By: John Baltutis

John Baltutis — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:18:22 +0000

Re: Steve McIntyre (#54), In other words, the team doesn't have any good rebuttal!

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:28:44 +0000

I received the following very reasonable explanation of “Special decision”:

Special decision relates to a decision taken to accept or reject a paper without review and [Available for Special Decision] appears automatically on the manuscript central system when the requisite number of reviews have not been received

Rather than exercising this option, McGregor is reasonably waiting for reviews.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:50:30 +0000

One of the nice things about public paper trails is that there’s a post- modernism about all this – to some extent, their review process is under review at the same time as my paper is under review.

The paper conclusively refutes one of the Santer findings. I’m sure that Team reviewers will think up a “good reason” why this information should not be in print. It will be interesting to see how the editor deals with this.

By: Jeff Id

Jeff Id — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:24:00 +0000

My guess: The whole Santer team has a copy and one of them is a reviewer. Who better to review after all.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:16:44 +0000

I received an email from the editor apologizing for the delay and promising to reply when he received reviews, but not explaining what’s involved in a “Special Decision”.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:49:10 +0000

As others have observed, there may be a very logical explanation for why I have the privilege of a “Special Decision”. Equally, I’m entitled to be intrigued by being the recipient of such a privilege and to inquire into exactly what the benefits are and what the criteria are. I observed that the published policies of the journal did not describe these benefits and criteria.

I’ve written to the editor of the journal asking the questions that were asked here and so far, I’ve received no response. It would obviously be very easy for the editor to lay any suspicions to rest merely by explaining the policy. Recall that this journal, like other Royal Meterological Society publications, does not have a data archiving policy, so it’s also possible that there is no formal policy on Special Decisions, but there would still be some sort of “common law” set of precedents governing the criteria and procedures, which would be worth knowing.

By: Ron Cram

Ron Cram — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:39:28 +0000

Re: Eve N. (#47), There is a history here. Perhaps you are aware of it or perhaps not. If there were no history, I would agree with you 100%. I would have hoped that, by now, someone from the journal would have taken the time to link to a published explanation about the process involved with "Special Decisions." That has not happened. As it is, I am willing to wait and see but I will not criticize those who express their concerns.

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:33:13 +0000

“special decision” could even mean that it does not fit into one of their usual categories but they are going to review it anyway. For example, some journals have no usual slot for comments or debates, but might make an exception for a Canadian.