Sentences with phrase «peer review process»

Firstly that senior climatologists have sought to undermine the peer review process and bully journals into supressing dissenting views.

What was triggered at this blog was the death of unconditional trust in the scientific peer review process, and the maturing of a new movement — that of peer - to - peer review.

c. Bear in mind, that these «skeptic scientists» are, believe it or not, generally highly qualified, not just dumb «science deniers», either because they managed to survive the test of long «research funding drought» and extreme hard scrutiny of their papers in the peer review process (as opposed to papers supporting «consensus» compatible views, Naomi Oreskes may introduce a weighing factor in their paper count), or because they just can not be ignored due to their high scientific merits / awards or because they are financing themselves, or because they are already retired or semi retired, now independent from funding.

In reality, the scientific peer review process serves this function.

Finding: The Panel appear to have exonerated CRU staff of undermining the peer review process without any evidence beyond unrecorded statements from Phil Jones.

2012 both houses of congress and the White House as well, sweep the EPA under the rug, investigate the whole grant funds machine and the peer review process, And the UN de-funded.

She conceptualized the web feature; ensured the overall quality and integrity of the scientific material; evaluated all the potential hot spots against our criteria; trained the external consultants; and oversaw the peer review process for this product.

These local officials were decision makers, and policy makers that were exposed to ISI that had not gone through the peer review process that is required by NOAA policy before public release.

Others have suggested that you seek a way to put this into the peer review process, and I would endorse that advice.

During the investigation, William Happer also outlined details of the unofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK climate sceptic think tank.

«The adaptive management process shall incorporate best available science and information, include protocols and standards, regular monitoring, a scientific peer review process, and provide recommendations to the board on proposed changes to forest practices rules to meet timber industry viability and salmon recovery.»

This highlights the larger issue of standards in the peer review process.

We think the peer review process should be much more open and allow comments from more than just the 2 - 3 reviewers the editor picks.

A recent series of reports from the Science and Public Policy Institute spotlights problems with the peer review process of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and efforts to create the illusion of scientific consensus on global warming.

Prior to a couple years ago, the programs used to adjust temps were not part of the peer review process.

We have tried to make the peer review process as open as possible for the Open Peer Review Journal.

You then critcise the whole peer review process despite it passing publications such as related to the EM drive which the popular view should state does not work.

But, from what I read, it appears that there is no single set of standards in play and governing the peer review process, and many standards appear to be nothing more than tacit understandings often interpreted differently if for no other reason than that the standards are rarely even discussed.

I'd like to call attention to the following relevant report on the status of the peer review process — brought up at: http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/03/frank-furedi-turning-peer-review-into.html

Contrarians have used these email quotes to argue that a group of scientists including Jones and Mann deliberately hijacked the peer review process to promote a favoured conclusion.

Contrarians claim that a small group of scientists, including those at University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), attempted to hijack the peer review process, pressuring journals to reject papers whose conclusions contradicted their own.

Comment: This is the infamous case that lead to the resignation of multiple editors of the Climate Research journal in protest over a flawed peer review process that allowed publication of the paper.

Doesn't the peer review process address this?

I judge that it is more important in the case of climate science and its bearing on climate policy to understand these limitations than to be able to change the peer review process in a major way.

The peer review process is corrupt.

In reading the Soon and Baliunas paper emails, it becomes very clear that all the authors think (or atleast write to that effect) that Soon and Baliunas» paper is such a bad paper because it was the product of a «corrupted» peer review process, and that the peer review process must have been corrupted because it produced such a bad paper as Soon and Baliunas.

These advisory boards would presumably play a role for policy - makers analogous to the gate keeping function of the editors of scientific journals and the the peer review process.

(1) undescribed «documents collected by the [committee];» (2) «documents provided by Dr. Mann...»; (3) the committee's preliminary report; (4) a May British House of Commons whitewash of Climategate; (5) a recent letter published in Science magazine deploring climate skepticism from 255 climate alarmists; (6) a document about the National Science Foundation peer review process; (7) the Department of Energy Guide to Financial Assistance; (8) information on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's peer review process; (9) information regarding the percentage of NSF proposals funded; and (10) Mann's curriculum vitae.

I think Wagner addressed that in his resignation announcement, when he emphasized that «formal» peer review process is not where he lays the blame.

The lack of transparency by some climate researchers, the willingness to bend the peer review process, and the willingness to destroy data rather than share it with researchers of a different perspective all raise fundamental issues of climate change policy.

For example, both Wegman and Barton claimed the report was «peer reviewed», and Wegman even claimed the peer review process was «similar» to that of the NRC hockey stick report.

Moreover, did not the ex-Editor in Chief of Remote Sensing say that the peer review process did not fail, and that the paper was honestly vetted?

I still find the basic concepts valuable but also find that like many other areas of science, PNS too can be misused, and unless I am missing something, it has not adequately dealt with the corruption of the extended peer review process with deliberate disinformation.

We have chosen to use this new open peer review process, because we believe that it should be more thorough and robust than the conventional closed peer review system.

As if the current peer review process means anything today.

EVEN IF Pielke is completely wrong and has been «serially» wrong, the attempt, within the peer review process, to address the «cloud feedback» problem is merit - worthy and deserves more respect than «the Team» is willing to offer.

Yet no one in the peer review process thought that an outcome that contradicted all of the historical record was wrong.

Wagner says the peer review process applied to the S&B paper was correct.

Any readers who want to read our papers or have some technical comments / criticism of our analysis are welcome to join the peer review process here.

We are helping you to understand that there are other plausible explanations for global warming, and the assumption that it is due to CO2 is based only on opinionated papers hand - waved through the peer review process by friendly referees [while skeptical papers rarely see the light of day], and by computer model outputs, which are invariably unable to predict the future climate, or even today's climate with all available past data as the input.

Our great learned societies realised just how little there was to the evidence, that it was manipulated along with the peer review process, as was the IPCC AR4 assessment, that there was even evidence of inventing data and further evidence of attempts at thwarting the free dissemination of data and codes in direct contravention of one of the first principles of the scientific method, that of reproducibility and / or falsification.

The peer review process, which I have been involved in from both sides, is far from perfect, but generally works, because if something gets through which is rubbish subsequent work will just show this, as I believe is the case with the Mann paper.

This is the celebrated IPCC internal peer review process in action.

Clearly, the traditional peer review process, while still valuable, was by itself insufficient to catch Mann's errors.

Otherwise we suspect the paper will not fare well in the peer review process.

and it has seriously devalued the peer review process, itself so important to the scientific community.

People outside of academia often don't see the point of going through the academic peer review process, which takes months and can cost order of $ 1000.

Mann's paper passed through the peer review process unscathed, and went on to become a key cornerstone of the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis and the subsequent policy debate.

The establishment's peer review process is one that subjects an author's scientific research to the scrutiny of other experts in the same field of research.

One of the interesting questions associated with the «hockey stick controversy» are the relationships among the authors and consequently how confident one can be in the peer review process.