444
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + + + + + Line 17:
Line 23: + + + +
Time taken
:[[IPCC]] proponents place great emphasis on the merit of articles that have been 'peer reviewed' by a journal. However, as a form of [[due diligence]], journal peer review in the multiproxy climate field is remarkably cursory, as compared with the due diligence of business processes. Peer review for climate publications, even by eminent journals like ''Nature'' or ''Science'', is typically a quick unpaid read by two (or sometimes three) knowledgeable persons, usually close colleagues of the author.
:[[IPCC]] proponents place great emphasis on the merit of articles that have been 'peer reviewed' by a journal. However, as a form of [[due diligence]], journal peer review in the multiproxy climate field is remarkably cursory, as compared with the due diligence of business processes. Peer review for climate publications, even by eminent journals like ''Nature'' or ''Science'', is typically a quick unpaid read by two (or sometimes three) knowledgeable persons, usually close colleagues of the author.
:It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations. In 2004, I was asked by a journal (''Climatic Change'') to peer review an article. I asked to see the source code and supporting calculations. The editor said that no one had ever asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. [http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66]
:It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations. In 2004, I was asked by a journal (''Climatic Change'') to peer review an article. I asked to see the source code and supporting calculations. The editor said that no one had ever asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. [http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66]
==Time taken for Peer Review==
The time taken for the peer review varies with the subject and the paper, but it not usually very long and some magazines aim for an ''average'' of 28 days from submission to decision. <ref>[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T7H-4HHWW4J-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a7c00b5c0df5183cb9c02d162a4828ee 28 days from submission to decision.]</ref> The actual time taken by the reviewer is much ''shorter'' and varies from five hours <ref>[http://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/documents/PRCPeerReviewSummaryReport-final-e-version.pdf Five hour Peer Review]</ref> to one and a half hours. <ref>[http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3110x.htm One-and-a-half hour Peer Review ]</ref>. Obviously more important papers will tend to be reviewed first.
==See also==
[[Richard Lenski]]
==External links==
==External links==
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66 Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science] - Steve McIntyre
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66 Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science] - Steve McIntyre
* Kulikovsky, Andrew, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5613 Creationism, Science and Peer Review] 2nd February 2008 (Creation Ministries International) (Documents some problems with and limitations of peer review).
* Kulikovsky, Andrew, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5613 Creationism, Science and Peer Review] 2nd February 2008 (Creation Ministries International) (Documents some problems with and limitations of peer review).
==References==
<references/>
[[category:science]]
[[category:science]]
[[category:peer review]]
[[category:peer review]]