Bugsy,

PNAS is not your usual journal. According to Wikipedia, and I think it is correct on this one, 'Members may handle the peer review process for up to 4 of their own papers per year—this is an open review process because the member selects and communicates directly with the referees. These submissions and reviews, like all for PNAS, are evaluated for publication by the PNAS Editorial Board. Until July 1, 2010, members were allowed to communicate up to 2 papers from non-members to PNAS every year.'

I repeat, that one of the lead authors had access to that process, and it was that access that allowed the paper to be published.

Don, I think you would do better to actually read their submission policies.

http://www.pnas.org/site/authors/editorialpolicies.xhtml

Being a member of the Academy has its advantages, but it's not a requirement.

Bugsy,

I didn't say it was a requirement, but that it was the means whereby the authors could gain at least a decent hearing for their paper.

The link you provided says what Wikipedia says: 'An Academy member may submit up to four of his or her own manuscripts for publication per year. To contribute an article, the member must affirm that he or she had a direct role in the design and execution of all or a significant fraction of the work and the subject matter must be within the member's area of expertise. Contributed articles must report the results of original research.'

With all due respect Don, what you are saying is purely conjecture. They took that route, because they could and it would probably increase their chances of getting published in that particular journal.

We will never know if it would been rejected if they submitted it by direct submission.

To imply that it would not have been published at all if not for the fact that one of the authors was a NAS member is a complete fantasy.

Their submission strategy was all about trying to get into the most prestigous journals. Their pique at being overlooked by Science and Nature and publically saying so was a bit churlish in my opinion. I suspect that they wanted to let everyone know that they at least submitted it to those journals, they thought themselves that good. "Oh yes, PNAS was our third choice doncha know?"

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

That's nuts.

Makarieva applies source and sink terms for water vapor in the mass continuity equation and uses atmosphere parameters, ie known physical quantities and processes, to explore the application of those equally known terms. She uses nothing except basic physical considerations. Something which was lacking in the models.

What the hell are you talking about?

Bugsy, is this the paper that you're "nuts" about?

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.pdf

Editor's comments are particularly cogent, finishing thus:

"... The handling editor (and the executive committee) concluded
to allow final publication of the manuscript in ACP, in order to
facilitate further development of the presented arguments, which
may lead to disproof or validation by the scientific community."

I would like to see more data and discussion, but not on OLO.