Here is a very disturbing article on the validity of "peer review" of scientific papers in which other scientists look at the work and pass judgment on it. It reveals a murky world in which some papers are rejected with no really valid reason while other papers of little or no merit can get passed. Yet it is this lottery that provides the evidence for costly political decisions such as those for global warming.
"In 1982, 12 already published papers were assigned fictitious author and institution names before being resubmitted to the same journal 18 to 32 months later. The duplication was noticed in three instances, but the remaining nine papers underwent review by two referees each. Only one paper was deemed worthy of seeing the light of day the second time it was examined by the same journal that had already published it." The whole article is well worth reading
"In 1982, 12 already published papers were assigned fictitious author and institution names before being resubmitted to the same journal 18 to 32 months later. The duplication was noticed in three instances, but the remaining nine papers underwent review by two referees each. Only one paper was deemed worthy of seeing the light of day the second time it was examined by the same journal that had already published it." The whole article is well worth reading
No comments:
Post a Comment
Climate Science welcomes your views/messages.