228
edits
Changes
→Publishing criteria
::If you want the Climateaudit quote removed, please provide a reason other than ''you'' can't access the page now. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:37, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
::If you want the Climateaudit quote removed, please provide a reason other than ''you'' can't access the page now. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:37, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::One of the primary editing principles of a wiki is that one must be bold with their edits. If you all really insist on debate before editing, then fine; it's an easy adaptation to make. It's just a bit backwards to editors such as myself who have a lot of experience at other sites.
:::As for debating the climateaudit quote, it's because it's not based on fact. I have never heard a credible story about peer review being so lax, as McIntyre plays it out to be. Here, for example, is an index of pages that Nature is sponsoring to help determine even better ways to peer review: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html . As for suggesting that this lax is especially present in Climatology papers, the idea strikes me as preposterous. Institutions and scientists have too much at stake in a hot science such as Climatology. It's important to note that peer review ''does not'' start at hte Journal level; things are reviewed countless times before they even leave the institution - they're often reviewed many times before they even leave the researcher's lab! There's too much grant money, too much prestige, and too much reputation on the line for these scientists to mess up.
:::Look, I've been there, I've done that. I don't know what McIntyre's rant is really about, because apparently he's been there and done that too. But he's using hyperbole. He's exaggerating for rhetorical effect. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 01:03, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
==POV?==
==POV?==