Peer review: choose your own reviewer!

A constant refrain from the HAFs, particularly the technicians (I refuse from now on to refer to them as 'scientists'), is that any criticisms or propositions from blogs can be dismissed because they have not been 'peer reviewed'.  This imprimatur, in which at least two other scientists/technicians must first study and then act as referees to either approve or not any paper offered for publication to a science magazine, is considered to be absolutely essential.  The fact that if you print a paper on the internet everyone and his brainy uncle can criticise it, is neither here nor there.  The gold standard remains the peer review system.  So just how 'golden' is it?  This, from an exchange of e-mails between an editor of a scientific magazine and 'Jones the Techie':

Glenn McGregor Chief Editor of the International Journal of Climatology and Phil Jones paper

1524.txt

Referee 1
“…I recommend to reject this manuscript, it is well below the standard acceptable in IJC or any other refereed journals. The manuscript did not contribute to the area of research, and the methodology used for comparison is naiveEand unaccepted in scientific publications…”

McGregor
“…In view of the comments of the referee(s) your manuscript has been denied publication in the International Journal of Climatology….”

Jones
“…I’m afraid these two reviews will definitely discourage me from submitting more papers to IJC! The two reviewers have not realized the novelty of this paper…You can ignore this email if you want. I won’t be submitting this paper to IJC again…”

2288.txt

McGregor
“…As I am not able to read every paper in detail I have to resort to taking a decision based on the reviews. In this case both were rather negative, hence my decision. Based on your response what I would like to do, with your permission, is to send the paper to a 3rd reviewer and request an opinion within 3 weeks…”

Jones
“…Can I make one suggestion? Good if the reviewer were a Brit – then they’s know something about the context. Possibilities would be Rob Wilby and Nigel Arnell…”  [My emphasis]

McGregor
“…Phil Thanks for the useful suggestion…”

2452.txt

McGregor:
“…I managed to get a third reviewer to look at the comments on your WG paper. Have pasted these below. I will rescind the decision of “reject” and change it to major revisions. Hope you are satisfied with this…”

“3rd Reviewer’s Comments
“…I think both of these reviews are very reasonable and not overly harsh, especially the lengthy and measured remarks from Reviewer 2. My major criticisms have all been noted by one or both of the reviewers:…”

I think the moral of the story is simple: if at first you don't succeed, choose another referee.  Honestly, would you buy a second-hand car from any of these wretches?  And remember, as a result of their scare stories, the Lesbian-straightener is going to whack another £280 a year on your energy bills in order to give handouts to windmill-makers which don't work when the wind is too high or too low which is most of the time.  Have a nice day!

I am grateful to commenter 'Intersting Times' at Climate Audit:

ADDITIONAL:  And here, from the same source as above, is yet another cosy exchange between a member of the editorial board of The International Journal of Crapulata Climatology(IJC) and a co-author with 'Jones the Techie' of a 'paper' which is actually a critique of another paper due for publication.  See how they 'fix' the problem! 

4235:
Osborne to Santer and Jones:
“…I’m on the editorial board of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to accompany any comment).
I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around time (he didn’t quantify this) and he will also “ask (the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online asap after the authors have received proofs”. He genuinely seems keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible. He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process…”

0455
Santer:
“…The editor of IJoC, Glenn McGregor, has agreed to treat our paper as an independent submission rather than as a comment on Douglass et al. This avoids the situation that I was afraid of – that our paper would be viewed as a comment, and Douglass et al. would have the “last word” in this exchange…”

What an absolute shower they are!  And if you don't believe anything you see in the papers, then certainly don't believe anything in a 'techie' magazine.

 

Comments

[dearieme]

Goodness me, these creeps don't deserve the dignified title of "technician" - they display nowhere near the standard of competence of the technicians I've worked with over the years. Come, come, Duffers: think again.

P.S. Your blog provider is obviously one of those prudish American providers whose committment to free speech is entirely notional.

[David Duff]

Sorry, DM, no offence meant against technicians. Perhaps you could come up with a better word.

Mystified by your last sentence?

[A K Haart]

I think of them as bureaucrats. In my experience public-sector scientists are expected to turn into bureaucrats when promoted beyond daily bench work. It happens at quite a junior level.

[David Duff]

Yes, 'bureaucrats', that's always a good insult.

[dearieme]

"Mystified by your last sentence?"
My original comment started with something a little stronger than "Goodness me": indeed, it started with "Good" and went on to allude to the old, bearded fascist in the sky. Anyway, your software didn't like it. It reminded me of a recent comment of mine obstructed from an American site: I finally twigged that its objection was to "who're". I ask you!

[Umbongo]

I think "crooks" just about sums them up.

[David Duff]

Good God, did it? Well,not this time, DM. Heh, that's computers for you!

Of course, "crooks", that's the word, thanks Bongers.