Comments on: Are Review Comments Confidential?

By: Another nail in AGW coffin…despite peer review hostility | pindanpost

Another nail in AGW coffin…despite peer review hostility | pindanpost — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:57:59 +0000

[...] skeptical papers, such as O’Donnell’s rebuttal to Steig et al (Antarctica is warming) where Steig himself inappropriately served as a reviewer, and a hostile one at [...]

By: New paper from Lindzen and Choi implies that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity. | Watts Up With That?

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 05:56:33 +0000

[...] papers, such as O’Donnell’s rebuttal to Steig et al (Antarctica is warming) where Steig himself inappropriately served as a reviewer, and a hostile one at [...]

By: John N-G

John N-G — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:59:29 +0000

Nope.

By: Speculating Privately « Climate Audit

Speculating Privately « Climate Audit — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:40:21 +0000

[...] Nielsen-Gammon has warned us that it would be unethical within the climate science community to speculate on the identity of [...]

By: Dave Andrews

Dave Andrews — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:18:04 +0000

Boro,

Unfortunately, I think Pilkington Glass went bust several years ago so there is no more transparency from them.

By: QBeamus

QBeamus — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:47:11 +0000

You’re confusing the content with the work product. The property right obviously cannot exist in the legal “answer”, because, by the act of doing the legal research, I am not creating that answer–I’m simply extracting it and writing it down in a form that is more useful to my client.

To further illustrate the difference, property rights in a commissioned work can revert to the creator for breach of contract–for example, if the patron doesn’t pay. That does NOT happen with the legal privilege. If my client doesn’t pay me for the work I do, I am still obligated to maintain the confidentiality.

By: Should Reviewer’s Names Be Kept Confidential? | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:02:11 +0000

[...] Are Review Comments Confidential? at Climate Audit [...]

By: Bhanwara

Bhanwara — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:11:57 +0000

LOL

By: Salamano

Salamano — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:09:46 +0000

Forgive my total stupidity…

But on the “Trackbacks” … “#3″ showing the post on “Another NewYorkTimes” seems to be lifted word-for-word and placed into that blog without any attribution. Is that a problem?

By: N-G: “Reviewers may need to be disingenuous” | Another Newyork Times

N-G: “Reviewers may need to be disingenuous” | Another Newyork Times — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 04:22:33 +0000

[...] Nielsen-Gammon writes as follows in a comment in the preceding post: If you are a reviewer and wish to remain confidential while remaining [...]