Hi Don,

I agree with your latest post subject to two qualifications.

(1) We've discussed a few cases in which scientific papers that overturn the "accepted orthodoxy" had a difficult passage. I've known many papers that did not overturn any orthodoxies to suffer long delays. Is there any evidence of a systemic bias against "unorthodox" papers?

(2) I would expect papers that claim to overturn orthodoxies to be subjected to greater scrutiny than those that work within an accepted paradigm. To cite an extreme example, if I submitted a paper that claimed I had used fiendishly complicated equipment to prove that neutrinos could travel just slightly faster than light I would expect my efforts to undergo a very lengthy peer review process.

The majority of papers that claim to upset the "accepted orthodoxies" prove to be defective so it is reasonable to examine them more closely than less revolutionary submissions. It is hard to separate the gold from the dross.

As to the Makarieva paper, first I need to declare my own biases. It is my (amateur) opinion that Makarieva et al are right. I think that climatologists underestimate the extent to which large forests influence wind patterns.

But having said that I must add that it is by not as clear cut (pun intended) as some posters believe. I've exchanged emails with two climatologists on this issue. Neither of them disputes the existence of the biotic pump; but they claim that other forces would swamp it.

That being said I think a two year publication delay is excessive.

I think we agree that it is beyond human capability to devise an infallible system. We will always find cases in which we think a rejected paper should have been published.

But do you have any evidence that solidly based contrarian papers are being systematically suppressed?

Because that's what it's about.

Steven,

I didn't say that such papers are being 'systematically' suppressed or delayed.There is some evidence that papers that support the status quo and might be needed for one of the IPCC's reports being given a really speedy treatment. I agree that we don't know enough to say there is a systematic bias.

I've been at every level of the peer review system, and don't recall systematic biases other than (a) for the orthodoxy, and (b) for pet projects of a particular group (and against them, too, from their opponents). I've recommended against papers that were published and for papers that weren't.

In the longer run, which may be shorter than I think, we will move to a system of public and electronic peer-review, which is happening already. The stranglehold of the journal publishers may be lifted soon, too, if more countries insist on full publication of publicly funded research, and more researchers avoid publishing in journals that erect paywalls. All that will see a change in peer review, too.

I don't think this example is an example of 'failure' of the peer review. The picture you paint of PNAS only accepting it for review because someone on the author lost was an Academy member is false. That is not the only route that these authors could have taken, PNAS also considers direct submissions. These authors probably thought they would have an easier time of getting a hearing, and they would probably be right, if they used the contributor submission system, but that may not have been the case.

The majority of rejections from Science or Nature, are generally editorial decisions, but this does not constitute a failure of peer review. In fact Nature did a study on papers that get rejected and found that they usually got better with revision and many of them were accepted in journals of higher impact than the original submissions.

I agree with Steven and don't see any reason to suspect a 'failure' of the peer review system. What I see is a general whinge by climate skeptics that science that contradicts AGW is not getting published. This should not be the case. There are heaps of journals and as Don alludes to there is a massive rise in open access journals (which also have peer review), with the added advantage that people can comment on them. The impact factor of journals such as the PLoS journals is quite high, and they are quite well integrated into database search engines such as Google Scholar etc. To say that you can't get published is rot, anyone who says that just can't get published in their pet journal of choice. It's all about the immediate personal prestige of the researcher, not the actual significance of the paper. The true significance of the paper is usually determined much later, by citations and other impact measures.

Hi Don,

I agree that putting publicly funded research behind a paywall is a disgrace!

I also agree that there will be more "open" online peer review which will give interested amateurs a chance to participate. I'm not sure exactly how this will work. Separating the gold from the dross when it comes to amateur peer review will be challenging. However, in general, the more eyes there are on research the better.

Steve’s climatology buddies “claim that other forces would swamp it.”

Makarieva has answered this incorrect point that what she is talking about is a minor climatic determinant; she says:

“I think this is a very good example showing that many people do not understand what our work is about when trying to judge about the magnitude of its implications. Dr. Schmidt’s words about 0.6% of total pressure refer to the weight of vapor molecules in an atmospheric column. This is a store. The effect of condensation on pressure gradient that we are describing depends on flux — the rate of precipitation. The faster the vapor is removed from the atmosphere, the greater the resulting pressure gradient will be. Fluxes and stores should not be confused, as these are variables of different dimensions.

I would also like to encourage people, before spreading the word about 0.6% of total pressure as a negligible magnitude, to give a thought to the relevance of this magnitude in the atmospheric context. For example, Hadley cells (the major feature of Earth’s atmospheric circulation) are driven by a pressure difference that is of the order of 10 hPa, i.e. a meager 1% of total air pressure.”

And her work is not about a “biotic pump”; it is about the accounting for latent heat and pressure in the process of condensation. The energy conversion in evaporation/condensation DWARFS any other atmospheric process, see:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Gilbert-Thermodyn%20surf%20temp%20&%20water%20vapour.pdf

The Lacis paper on behalf of AGW wants us to believe the non-condensing greenhouse gases control the earth’s temperature and disaster will occur because of a 3.7 W/m2 forcing over the next 100 years or so. But never mind that evaporating/condensing water generates energy fluxes from Ldq and PdV [see above link, equations 1 to 3] that well exceeds 1000 W/m2 each and every day.

I agree with steve’s unintentionally ;ironic comment:

“the more eyes there are on research the better.”

Someone should tell the climate scientists; their refusal to be open and transparent is the real disgrace.

It doesn't matter cohenite.

It's a modelling paper that has no data to support it.

The authors themselves freely admit that it's a hypothesis that still needs data.

Funny how data-free modelling is ok, if it's says something that may support your cause. Which remains to seen of course, but it would make seem to make the case that land use change is important, wouldn't it?