Category Archives: Disclosure and Diligence

Pielke Jr on Spinning Science

Roger Pielke Jr has an interesting post an objectionable press release – recall the controversy over the press release last year. Some time, I’ll discuss rules on press releases that apply to stock promoters – there are things that mining promoters are not allowed to say in press releases. As someone with experience with […]

Willis on “Getting authors to respond to questions”

[JohnA: For reasons that I don’t understand, posting comments became nearly impossible for some people for a short while. This comment from Willis I thought should be captured for future reference so I made it into a post.] Willis Eschenbach writes: Well, on the 4th of this month I posted a couple of questions on […]

U.S. CCSP REcommends Audit Trails

The U.S. CCSP report on temperature trends includes the following remarkable recommendations on audit trails: The independent development of data sets and analyses by several independent scientists or teams will serve to quantify structural uncertainty and to provide objective corroboration of the results. In order to encourage further independent scrutiny, data sets and their full […]

Data Archiving – Bird Flu

David Stockwell has an interesting post on the lack of public archiving of bird flu sequences, drawing on a longer post by Declan Butler. So apparently, noone is opposed to depositing the sequences in Genbank immediately, but noone is taking the decision to do so. In the Nature editorial, Dreams of flu data we argued: […]

More Data Archiving

I’m actually looking into the WDCP updates page more regularly now to see if any new information has been archived. Five more Jacoby data sets have been archived in the past week: one from the Yukon, 4 from Mongolia. There are still far more that have not been archived than have been archived, but that […]

Nature’s Statistical Checklist for Authors

Nature’s Guide to Authors includes an excellent statistical checklist which authors are asked to comply with to "ensure statistical adequacy". I’ve reproduced the checklist below, bolding a couple of interesting criteria. Readers of this blog can readily imagine how this checklist would apply to MBH98 or, for that matter to Moberg et al [2005]. One […]

Two Editorials

Some people, including some who are not particularly sympathetic to the thoughts expressed here, suggest that the way that I do things is ineffective and have a variety of suggestions on how I could get my views across better. Mostly they involve less blogging and more journal submissions. Maybe they’re right . However, I noticed […]

Enron Trial in the News

Are any of you keeping track of the news on the trials of Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling? Andrew Fastow, their CFO, was on the stand yesterday. There’s a terrific book about Enron by Kurt Eichenwald, in which the House Energy and Commerce Committee is mentioned (they had a piece of some Enron […]

A Reply from Science

A couple of days ago, I posted up a copy of a letter that I sent to Science on archiving or non-archiving in connection with Osborn and Briffa 2006, Esper et al [2002] and Thompson et al 1989 (Dunde); 1997 (Guliya). I received a reply from Science today, which they stated was not for “public […]

More Hwang Fallout at Pitt

It is reported here that the University of Pittsburgh Research Integrity Panel concluded that Dr. Gerald Schatten didn’t intentionally fabricate data, but he committed “research misbehavior” in signing his name to Dr. Hwang Woo-suk’s work in South Korea. The panel found Schatten, as co-author with Hwang on a 2005 article in the journal Science, “did […]