Peer reviewed this, and peer reviewed that…still crap

via the tipline

The Green taliban love to declare a study isn;t valid unless it is peer reviewed…they use this to dismiss anyone who publishes anything that doesn’t fit their narrative. A pommy bastard currently residing in Australia emailed me.

You love the Green Taliban’s peer review even less than I do.

Here’s some interesting research which won’t extend that love affair any…. 

Global warming/Climate change is the biggest con trick ever perpetrated on mankind. It’s a thinly-disguised play to take further control to the centre by people who otherwise would have been (and in many cases still are) card-carrying members of the Communist Party.

TNA (Crispian Cholmondeley-Smythe)
P.S. if you post the link, whore otherwise I’ll tell Cooky and the boys to humiliate the Black Caps.

P.P.S. Damn, bad timing.

The link he refers to is this one on a study on the relevance of the peer review process.

A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.

The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.

With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Lloyd

    Dammit, I knew those scientists had it easy with peer review! Every journal I have written for (all history or engineering history) has a hideously rigorous review process. Most quality journals use ManuscriptOne or similar automated submission and management systems which scan documents for plagiarism and for content duplication as part of the review process. The fact that review rorts can be perpetrated is irritating to the extreme…

  • spollyike

    I see the Russel Norman is stating that National is politically “Extreme”, this morning.

    He probably got that from one of their best peer reviewed articles.

    • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

      Peer reviewed in the quad at Victoria University by a bunch of pasty middle trash pseudos wearing bomber jackets with tea-cosies in their heads.

  • Andy

    Haven’t heard much about that Gergis et al Hockey Stick paper for a while. What is it about hockey sticks and peer review that allows such low quality work through?

  • baw

    And yet the journals cost an arm and a leg to read despite their freely supplied content.

    Any one who wants to keep up with the latest in their field has to pay the journals.

  • jagilby

    They’ve never been fans of the “peer reviewed” work that has come out of the Chicago and Austrian Schools of Economics…. or any other generally accepted and proven economic or financial theory for that matter.

    • spollyike

      That is except the school of economic thought tracing its foundations to the critique of classical political economy first expounded upon by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

      • jagilby

        Oh yeah, you mean the same Marxist economic theory that Carl Menger and Eugen Böhm von Bawerk of the Austrian School extensively critiqued. Criques that mainstream economics “peer reviewed” and accepted.

        They conveniently overlook those peer reviews.

        • spollyike

          Yes you’re right jagilby, they do ignore them don’t they.

          How convenient.

    • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

      BOOM! – Nice!

  • johnbronkhorst

    “peer review”…All your need is a number of people in a field of study….divide them into 2 groups one group “peer reviews” the other then vice versa. To try and make it harder to spot, every so often you redraw the group make up randomly. The more people you have in the group the more plausible the results look.
    Until in the case of global warming, an outsider finds out, that you got many of your results from a NONEXISTANT source!

  • Rebecca

    Psychology is subjective. Science doesn’t have to be. E.g. if it’s an article about whether a new sort of transplant is any good, there is acceptable methodology and measurement and control groups and ethics and if the boxes are ticked, it’s a good paper. In psychology it’s so nebulous that you can have psychology “experts” swearing 180-degree opposite conclusions as happened in the infamous Jodi Arias murder case in the US this month. On national TV one of the psychologists even decided he was competent to disagree with the medical examiner who used scientific process to determine that the murdered fellow would have been incapacitated when he was shot in the head. The psychologist decided that his familiar nebulous world extended into the territory of medical examination making him competent to disagree with the forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy. According to the psychologist, the motor centers are miles away from the bullet tract so the victim would not have been incapacitated. However, you don’t need to be a pathologist to know that any forceful bop to the head can “knock somebody unconscious” with no obligation to target a motor center. This is the sort of stupidity you can expect when people believe that science is determined by their own opinions and the force with which they can present them. So I’m not surprised if a group of psychology reviewers deliver this sort of result.

  • philbest

    The Wegman et al (National Academy of Sciences) report for the US Congress in 2007, called the alarmist scientists peer-reviewing each others papers, a “cabal”.

    Guess why Congress almost unanimously threw out a CO2-reduction bill at that time?

    As with everything else in CAGW, the quality of investigative and informative journalism on all this has been a total failure if not deliberately traitorous.

    “Climategate” was no surprise to those of us who had actually READ the Wegman Report.

    Alarmist trolls on the blogosphere will tell you that the Wegman Report was “discredited for plagiarising”.

    Like, a couple of paragraphs for which attribution was failed to be given, destroy the whole report. Typical of the tactics of the Left and the warmists – which are practically synonymous.

  • Mediaan

    Tremendous comment, thanks. This so needs bringing out.

    Very funny how most journals failed to detect the repeat of the study, too.

  • Col

    I am sitting here and reading this, then I had this thought about the Greens, if they get in they may stop tree felling, and hence no toilet paper, worse still they may make us recycle.

    • Bad__Cat

      Just like in post-Hugo’s Venezuela.