As readers of this blog know, Juckes et al submitted a paper for online review at Climate of the Past Discussions. See here for discussion. There were many unsatisfactory and even distasteful aspects to this paper. I submitted a detailed online review, as did Willis Eschenbach and another CA reader. I spent time rebutting a variety of unsupportable allegations about our paper. I did so in the belief that the online review process at CPD was a bona fide process. It appears that this belief was mistaken.
The responsible editor, H. Goosse, was a serial coauthor with Michael Mann and not particularly well-disposed towards the MM criticisms of MBH. Although I was an invited reviewer of B’rger’s re-submission, Goosse made no reference to either my review or to Willis’ review in his comments to Juckes et al. However, he did indirectly call for Juckes et al to “strongly reduce” their section purporting to criticize us and only “briefly” mention this controversy:
One exception is section 3 “critic of the IPCC2001 consensus on millennial temperatures”. This part is devoted to a very specific topic, difficult to follow for readers who are not familiar with previous work and to my point of view is not clearly connected to the other parts of the manuscript even in the revised version. This section is already long compared to the other ones of the manuscript, although some parts would require some more detailed information. I consider thus, at this stage, that this discussion should be much clearer if this was let that to another paper or note specifically devoted to this subject. In agreement with the Referee, I would thus recommend that the authors strongly reduce this section and briefly mention the controversy about the “IPCC2001 consensus” in section 2.
So while Goosse was undoubtedly not inclined to do us any favors, he clearly did not accept the Juckes submission. B’rger went to a considerable effort to re-submit a CPD submission and I guess that most of us assumed that Juckes et al would re-submit, just as B’rger had to re-submit.
However, we’ve seen no re-submissions. However, if you look at the references for Ammann and Wahl 2007, you will see:
Juckes MN, Allen MR, Briffa KR, Esper J, Hegerl GC, Moberg A, Osborn TJ, Weber SL, Zorita E (2006) Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation. Clim Past Discuss 2:1001’1049
So Juckes et al don’t seem to have bothered going to the trouble of re-writing to meet referee comments. But it’s still cited in a Climatic Change article as though it was peer reviewed. We’ve seen examples in the Ammann/Mann corpus of academic check kiting. Surely this is a case of review avoidance if not actual review evasion (borrowing the terminology from tax law.)
And surely this is damaging to the reputation of Climate of the Past and should be protested by its editors. The CP experiment was an experiment in online and open peer review. CP Discussion editors had minimal requirements for posting online, presumably on the basis that online review comments would be taken seriously by authors. Ammann, Wahl, Juckes, Allen, Esper, Hegerl, Moberg, Osborn, Weber and Zorita have demonstrated a total disregard for the CP process by citing (and allowing their article to be cited) even though CP editors had asked that changes be made. And now Climatic Change has acquiesced in this continuing degradation of the currency by permitting Juckes et al 2006 to be cited as though it were a peer reviewed article.
Time for Climate of the Past editors to speak up.