Comments on: Who Chose the Eleven? An Answer

By: bender

bender — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:06:00 +0000

Because if you say “I am *told* that …” then the next question is “and who is the teller?” Substitute “understand” for “told” and the teller disappears.

By: JTPratt

JTPratt — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 07:49:37 +0000

Unbelievable. You have absolutely uncovered this matter, after much waiting. Lisa Williams seems oblivious to the fact of what she’s uncovered. Good show, old boy.

By: Terry Carruthers

Terry Carruthers — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:38:28 +0000

Is there a problem with the site or is Steve just taking some well deserved down time? This is the last post I can see and only very sparse comments over last 6 days.

By: Stacey

Stacey — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:34:05 +0000

Why eleven papers?

By: Beth Cooper

Beth Cooper — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:16:59 +0000

Oxburgh’s language does not inspire public confidence. Where we are entitled to expect professional addressing of specific issues, we are given imprecision, hesitancy and obfuscation such as : “came by…I believe….we feel…we all felt…I suspect that…. no indication that….I don’t think that can be true,”

By: Stan Plamer

Stan Plamer — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:30:01 +0000

It would also be useful to allow reviewers to append a comment on the published work. This would encourage serious effort at constructive comment

I have seen this done in some engineering journals. In one case, it was remarkable to see that quite a famous reviewer had misunderstood the purpose of the technique being describd.

By: TerryS

TerryS — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:14:01 +0000

…if Einstein had been subjected to such challenges when his research was in the formative stage, his reputation would have been terminally damaged before he got to the theory of relativity.

I believe Einstein said something along the lines of (I dont know the exact quote):
“It doesn’t matter how many scientists agree with me, it only takes one to prove me wrong”

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:12:20 +0000

I don’t think reviewers need to be named. I think that would stifle dissent too much. I do think that Editors should require rigorous and substantive reviews, not simple handwaving or saying the paper is “bizarre”.

And comments on papers need to have a reasonable limit on size. We seem to see often enough that a coherent comment isn’t possible with the restrictions that are imposed in many journals.

By: bill

bill — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:18:59 +0000

Steve often talks about peas and thimbles, and distraction techniques. One og the AGW-ers neatest distraction techniques is to go on about peer review, planting the false distraction about peer-review = good (and incidentally claiming that E&E, which published the M&M paper which got the ball really rolling, isn’t peer reviewed when they know full well it is). Peer-review, outside of medicine for obvious reasons, is in fact a very low threshold, reviewers only ask pretty basic questions like, does the argument hold together, have most recent work been overlooked, does it add anything to what we know; and then on to second order questions like, whats the point of table 4 in relation to the text. In short, reviewers are not re-doing an authors work, and their recommending it for publication does very definitely not mean they are confirming the work is right or good in any way. Mainly they are saying, is it worth chucking this message in a bottle into the sea to see what will become of it? Because of course, real review takes place post publication, when people try to replicate work that makes exceptional claims. And isn’t there some chap at Penn state who’s work, peer reviewed and all that, seems a bit hard to replicate?

By: Alfred Burdett

Alfred Burdett — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:51:42 +0000

SC,

Re: “If there is no “peer review”, no apparent fire-wall, wouldn’t you yourself be extra-careful to vet and firm up your own submission? Your reputation will be riding on it.”

That’s one of the things many in the scientific community like about peer review: if it’s published it must be true! Hence a strong reluctance to consider other options.

I agree, that “if we have to have peer review … [the process] could be improved in various ways.” I think that reviewers of published articles should be named, thereby giving reviewers greater responsibility for their decisions or recommendations. It would also be useful to allow reviewers to append a comment on the published work. This would encourage serious effort at constructive comment.