Climate change Culture Global Warming Intelligent Design Peer review

At the Guardian: A big problem with murky science journals is that they publish climate deniers

Spread the love
File:FileStack.jpg
What’s hot? What’s not?/Niklas Bildhauer, Wikimedia

Oh? From Graham Readfearn at the Guardian:

Deniers have found a platform in emerging publications that publish without rigorous review

Journals that are “open access” make their money by charging academics or institutions a fee for peer reviewing and checking submitted academic manuscripts, and then publishing them. There are many reputable publishers working this way.

But this murky world has a predator of its own – climate science deniers looking to take advantage of the questionable quality controls in return for getting their work published in what the publishers claim are “peer-reviewed journals” but that, in reality, are not.

It might make very little difference if they were “peer-reviewed” according to Readfearn’s standards, given how things are going with peer review in general.

Another of the publishers used by Mörner, known as Juniper Publishers, was one of those to be caught in a hoax in 2017 when it accepted a “Dr Doll” on to its editorial board. Dr Doll was a fake veterinary surgeon created by Curtin University’s Prof Mike Daube with a profile based on his dog, a Staffordshire terrier.

Daube told the Huffington Post he had orchestrated the hoax “to expose shams of this kind, which prey on the gullible, especially young or naive academics and those from developing countries”. More.

Sure, but the Sokal hoax on presumably legitimate journals is now over 20 years old.

Guardian writers should keep up to date with Retraction Watch. “Murky” science journals that sometimes publish dissidents are hardly the big problem.

See also: Peer review “unscientific”: Tough words from editor of Nature

and

At Times Higher: Peer review an “ineffective and unworthy” institution, some reforms proposed

2 Replies to “At the Guardian: A big problem with murky science journals is that they publish climate deniers

  1. 1
    Tom Robbins says:

    More Gullible warming propaganda – I find it obsense to suggest prominent scientists that have virtually disproven that man is causing a warm up that has reached its peak long ago, and shows ever sign of staying flat or a trend doward, that can clearly be shown to be caused by solar cycles and the warming of the oceans and their cycles -PDO etc., have shown that warming is never preceded by increases in c02 but that c02 levels always rise AFTER the warming, by using some peer review scam. When once again, it is the grant hungry, agenda driven, data corrupting, ever changing and failed predictions (can you say climategate emails? MWP, early 20th century warming then sharp cooling into the 70’s simply made to disappear!!), ever divergent with even the IPCC’s findings, that have never proven man’s tiny addition of c02 is responsible for any or part of the warming, – NEVER, THAT use the good old boy peer review. Basically, if it agrees with the narrative, they can publish any ridiculous claim and call it science. This is all one giant game to them, but the survival of liberty and the middle class rest on the US and other free nations from resisting even MORE control of their lives by Big Brother. Absolute nonsense…

  2. 2
    asauber says:

    climate science deniers looking to take advantage of the questionable quality controls

    Oh, in Climate Science, questionable quality controls are the norm.

    Andrew

Leave a Reply