�Alarming� Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

[Cow Poke]

That sounds familiar. Wise words indeed.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flatulence.

[Cow Poke]

Ah, but Starlight set me straight on the "peer review process" --- it's actually just some of his buddies glancing at his report, slapping him on the back, and saying "good job". Then if somebody OUTSIDE happens to catch the error, "the system worked".

(when the peer review process fails due to confirmation bias, minimize the importance of peer review)

So, the other day, I had emailed my wife Starlight's 'explanation" of the peer review process.

Mrs CP manages the publications for her department at Texas A&M. Her "big boss" is the guy who is over all the publications, and the whole peer review process. I had asked Mrs CP to show her boss Startlight's assessment.

Her boss stood there reading it for a minute, shook his head, handed the paper back to Mrs CP and said "I bet he has brown eyes" and walked out. An obvious reference to 'containing large quantities of bovine... stuff'.

[Sparko]

So, the other day, I had emailed my wife Starlight's 'explanation" of the peer review process.

Mrs CP manages the publications for her department at Texas A&M. Her "big boss" is the guy who is over all the publications, and the whole peer review process. I had asked Mrs CP to show her boss Startlight's assessment.

Her boss stood there reading it for a minute, shook his head, handed the paper back to Mrs CP and said "I bet he has brown eyes" and walked out. An obvious reference to 'containing large quantities of bovine... stuff'.

I am reminded of the scandal a few years ago where people submitted fake papers to various peer-review journals and they were printed, showing how little the journals even tried to do proper peer-review.


Fake Paper Exposes Failed Peer Reviewhttps://www.the-scientist.com/the-nu...r-review-38589

others:
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-real-f...-journals.html
https://www.iflscience.com/editors-b...what-happened/

I think we had a thread about some of the various journals that accepted faked papers somewhere. Might be before the crash though.

[Cow Poke]

I am reminded of the scandal a few years ago where people submitted fake papers to various peer-review journals and they were printed, showing how little the journals even tried to do proper peer-review.


Fake Paper Exposes Failed Peer Reviewhttps://www.the-scientist.com/the-nu...r-review-38589

I think we had a thread about some of the various journals that accepted faked papers somewhere. Might be before the crash though.

So, maybe Starlight is not trying to explain how the peer review process is SUPPOSED to work -- but merely the sham that it has become?

[Starlight]

So, the other day, I had emailed my wife Starlight's 'explanation" of the peer review process.

Mrs CP manages the publications for her department at Texas A&M. Her "big boss" is the guy who is over all the publications, and the whole peer review process. I had asked Mrs CP to show her boss Startlight's assessment.

Her boss stood there reading it for a minute, shook his head, handed the paper back to Mrs CP and said "I bet he has brown eyes" and walked out. An obvious reference to 'containing large quantities of bovine... stuff'.

I have blue eyes and that's a bizarre comment, and frankly I would have guessed a racist one without your explanation.

I am a bit confused at what point you think you're trying to make. I gave a short and simple answer to your questions about the peer review process, which I am familiar with from personally experiencing it repeatedly. You seem, somewhat strangely, to disbelieve me, though I'm not sure what part of my answer you disbelieve nor why you don't believe it. I don't know why you've got a sudden interest in the details of the publication process, but whatever. And now you have a she-said he-said story about what a person said to another person when you gave them my brief explanation (and who even knows what they thought the context was or what they were assessing it for), and one which doesn't give any detail whatsoever about what in particular (if anything at all) they thought was wrong with it.

Sparko's complaint is at least clearer: He seems upset that I suggested the term "peer review" in a broad sense could be used to refer to both the pre-publication checks a paper undergoes as well as its post-publication reception among the scientific community, and he cherry picked from the wiki article to support his claim it only refers to the first and selectively omitted parts of the wiki article that referred to the latter concept. So at least his point is obvious, as is the way he's mis-citing evidence for it. But I'm not so sure what point you're trying to make CP.

[Cow Poke]

I have blue eyes and that's a bizarre comment, and frankly I would have guessed a racist one without your explanation.

Yes, you liberals always go to race.

[Starlight]

I am reminded of the scandal a few years ago where people submitted fake papers to various peer-review journals and they were printed, showing how little the journals even tried to do proper peer-review.

The process for review varies somewhat by journal. It's generally taken for granted that the better quality journals (typically measured by a metric known as "impact factor" if you want to google that for a particular journal, <2 = garbage, 3-4 = okay, >5 = good) tend to have better review processes in place. However, the subject of the quality of review processes and ways they could be improved is an ongoing point of discussion among scientists in general. The human factor has a tendency to find ways to short-circuit the process, such as getting mates to be the reviewers, etc.

The OP article is going to be particularly embarrassing for the specific journal involved, Nature, because it is supposed to be one of the top, if not the top, journal in many scientific fields, and so supposed to have a more-rigorous-than-usual approach to pre-publication review, so the fact they missed something so basic on the pre-publication review is going to have them red-faced for months, and going to have other journals laughing at them.

As the wiki article you cited puts it "Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scholarly journals, but it by no means prevents publication of invalid research." That is why, as I noted, the real peer reviewing comes when the larger scientific community gets to see the article post-publication and can express their views on it and compare it their own and other research over time. The true quality of a paper can be seen by how it is viewed 10 years later.

[Tassman]

Sorry CP, but your sarcasm in the OP gives you away. "High priests of the order of The Warming Planet, set me straight.

Exactly, this is CP's weasel m.o. He's done it before. This is why I queried his purpose is starting this thread. The whole point of the thread seems to me to be a blatant attempt to cast doubt upon the veracity of climate change as verified by the vast majority of scientists and professionals in the field...including those within Trump's own administration. The only people opposing it are those with alternative motivation, either religion-based or with commercial interests such as maintaining the coal industry.

[Cow Poke]

Exactly, this is CP's wease....

Awwwww, even the widdle dwama queen's feewins got hurted by my sarcasm....

After which he spews forth NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

[JimL]

Awwwww, even the widdle dwama queen's feewins got hurted by my sarcasm....

Nobody got hurt by your sarcasm CP, it just exposed your true mindset that's all.

[Cow Poke]

Nobody got hurt by your sarcasm CP, it just exposed your true mindset that's all.

So..... I use a little sarcasm, and you and the Drama Queen get triggered.....

[One Bad Pig]

Sparko's complaint is at least clearer: He seems upset that I suggested the term "peer review" in a broad sense could be used to refer to both the pre-publication checks a paper undergoes as well as its post-publication reception among the scientific community, and he cherry picked from the wiki article to support his claim it only refers to the first and selectively omitted parts of the wiki article that referred to the latter concept. So at least his point is obvious, as is the way he's mis-citing evidence for it. But I'm not so sure what point you're trying to make CP.

I took a bit of a deeper look at this, clicking through from Sparko's general wiki article to the one expanding upon the concept of scholarly peer review. There is, indeed, a section on post-publication review. Significantly, however, it does not convey the meaning you intend. Also significantly, two of the three paragraphs are followed with [citation needed]; the third contains a single citation calling post-publication peer review "novel" and the concept is clearly intended to replace traditional peer review, not complement it.

I don't generally have a problem with the concept of peer review; it's a great idea to have others check over your work to make sure you didn't goof something up. However, in the particular field of climate change, all too often the "peer review" process seems to do little more than make sure the conclusion reached is in accord with the common consensus.

[Sparko]

I have blue eyes and that's a bizarre comment, and frankly I would have guessed a racist one without your explanation.

I am a bit confused at what point you think you're trying to make. I gave a short and simple answer to your questions about the peer review process, which I am familiar with from personally experiencing it repeatedly. You seem, somewhat strangely, to disbelieve me, though I'm not sure what part of my answer you disbelieve nor why you don't believe it. I don't know why you've got a sudden interest in the details of the publication process, but whatever. And now you have a she-said he-said story about what a person said to another person when you gave them my brief explanation (and who even knows what they thought the context was or what they were assessing it for), and one which doesn't give any detail whatsoever about what in particular (if anything at all) they thought was wrong with it.

Sparko's complaint is at least clearer: He seems upset that I suggested the term "peer review" in a broad sense could be used to refer to both the pre-publication checks a paper undergoes as well as its post-publication reception among the scientific community, and he cherry picked from the wiki article to support his claim it only refers to the first and selectively omitted parts of the wiki article that referred to the latter concept. So at least his point is obvious, as is the way he's mis-citing evidence for it. But I'm not so sure what point you're trying to make CP.

Dear Gaslight,

The whole point of a peer-reviewed journal is to have the papers reviewed and vetted by peers for accuracy BEFORE publishing the article. Otherwise if the journal just publishes any old nonsense and expects their readership to do all the heavy lifting, then why even be a peer reviewed journal in the first place? Their reputation would be shot in no time if they continued to publish inaccurate papers and studies. As we have seen with the various journals that I listed links to that were caught publishing nonsense and rightly criticized for it.

I am surprised that I, a mere layman, would need to explain that to you, an eminent scientist. That is unless you are just trying to gaslight us with more BS to excuse an obvious failing by this journal and author because it supports your pet theory?

[Sparko]

The process for review varies somewhat by journal. It's generally taken for granted that the better quality journals (typically measured by a metric known as "impact factor" if you want to google that for a particular journal, <2 = garbage, 3-4 = okay, >5 = good) tend to have better review processes in place. However, the subject of the quality of review processes and ways they could be improved is an ongoing point of discussion among scientists in general. The human factor has a tendency to find ways to short-circuit the process, such as getting mates to be the reviewers, etc.

The OP article is going to be particularly embarrassing for the specific journal involved, Nature, because it is supposed to be one of the top, if not the top, journal in many scientific fields, and so supposed to have a more-rigorous-than-usual approach to pre-publication review, so the fact they missed something so basic on the pre-publication review is going to have them red-faced for months, and going to have other journals laughing at them.

exactly, Which was the point I was making to Tassman when he asked WHY did CP post this thread in the first place. It is precisely because they allowed this paper to be published, and obviously did NOT do a proper peer-review, and neither did most of the readers until one climate denier bothered to actually check the math on the first page. Why? Because nobody else had a reason to suspect there was a problem because the paper confirmed their beliefs on the topic. Pure confirmation bias at work.

As the wiki article you cited puts it "Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scholarly journals, but it by no means prevents publication of invalid research." That is why, as I noted, the real peer reviewing comes when the larger scientific community gets to see the article post-publication and can express their views on it and compare it their own and other research over time. The true quality of a paper can be seen by how it is viewed 10 years later.

I never said it was perfect, nor that errors couldn't be checked after the fact. I was commenting on your obvious attempt to excuse the journal and claim this was a normal process to just publish papers without a proper review and let the audience check it. That was a laughable excuse.

[Cow Poke]

Star, read what you wrote here...

The OP article is going to be particularly embarrassing for the specific journal involved, Nature, because it is supposed to be one of the top, if not the top, journal in many scientific fields, and so supposed to have a more-rigorous-than-usual approach to pre-publication review, so the fact they missed something so basic on the pre-publication review is going to have them red-faced for months, and going to have other journals laughing at them.

Which is WHY I started the thread, because this is an EXCELLENT example of peer-review failure, and is EXACTLY why it got Tassy's little tights in a wad. The 'scientific community', with regards to climate, has already declared the debate is over, and it appears they have allowed this confirmation bias to corrupt their review process.

And, I apologize once again for triggering the very delicate sensibilities of those who can't handle a little sarcasm - I'll try to be a little more delicate in the future.