There is an interesting discussion at PBS on peer review, in which Donald Kennedy, editor of Science, defended their existing "rigorous" processes, but re-iterated: the journal has to trust its reviewers; it has to trust the source. It can’t go in and demand the data books. If I criticize Science’s due diligence procedures, I don’t […]
I’ve planning to discuss Nature and Science policies on archiving and due diligence, I’ve got lots else to do, but have gotten sidetracked in the fascinating details of the unfolding of the Hwang controversy. Here’s a preliminary account.
Lots of people have criticized me for the mere idea of auditing scientific articles. Think of the many blog-posters who have ridiculed this as a total waste of time for scientists, who should be getting on with more "productive" work. Here’s an endorsement for the concept reported in yesterday’s Washington Post.
In May 2005, I mentioned Hwang et al. [Science 2005], now at the center of a firestorm. This reference was entirely by chance, since my concern was the precipitous UCAR press release of the Ammann and Wahl paper and their failure to report its subsequent rejection. (Of course, they later got the editor changed and […]
A science scandal of Bre-X proportions has been developing through December engulfing both Science and Nature. New developments on Hwang’s stem cell research have been occurring daily. Hwang, like Mann, was one of Scientific American’s 50 Visionaries. Unlike Mann, he has been stripped of his title. I started looking at the story from a peer […]
There is an interesting controversy at Nature and Science about peer review in the context of Hwang’s stem cell research (google for links.) I’m going to post a comment about this in light of my own experience with both. First, I want to post some information (courtesy of a reader here) about archiving policies at […]
Some seasonal remarks – a few substantive and a few personal.
I posted up on Kaufmann and Stern [2005] on GCMs a few days ago. Kaufmann subsequently posted up at realclimate here about this, with a detailed reply from Gavin. The exchange is interesting on a number of levels – there is an interesting statistical point raised. In addition, you will notice how quick Gavin is […]
Let’s look again at what Rasmus was saying before Gavin sent him to the end of the bench. He argued that Cohn and Lins were sucking and blowing by calibrating the autocorrelation on instrumental records, which themselves contained a trend. Gavin endorsed this position. On the face of it, this seems like a plausible criticism. […]
In response to a few complaints, I’ve expanded the recent comments from 5 to 10, because we now have them coming so thick and fast that some people (rather sad people in my view) are missing responses to comments. Of course the ultimate solution for those scientists out there who claim to be addicted to […]
