'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review

guardian.co.uk ^ | 9 February 2010 | Fred Pearce

[neverdem]

Peer-review was meant to be a safeguard against the publication of bad science but the balance is shifting towards open access

--snip--

Others are tougher. The Royal Society in London demands full data disclosure from contributors to its Philosophical Transactions.

Schneider told the Guardian there might be some middle ground – especially over researchers' highly prized and personally written computer codes. Maybe, like commercial patents, they should be allowed exclusive use of their own codes, as their own intellectual property, for two or three years. That, he said, would be time enough to "publish the initial papers using their hard work". But after that, the codes should all be disclosed. He added: "This broad discussion about the boundaries of data transparency, personal codes and exclusive rights... may be the only positive that might emerge from this unfortunate incident."

But many sceptics are not satisfied with such half-way houses. Many sceptic bloggers are in full cry against the entire peer review process. They talk about "peer-to-peer" review. Meaning an end to centralised control through journals and a free for all in which everything is published and anyone can comment on anything. A journalist active in this movement, the West Coast former street artist and radical arts critic Patrick Courrielche, claims: "Climategate... triggered the death of unconditional trust in the scientific peer-review process, and the maturing of a new movement of peer-to-peer review."

Can an entirely free intellectual market deliver better science? Can the pioneers of scientific review on the blogosphere do better than the journals? Would this ensure quality control or shatter it? Should the Jeffrey Archers of the scientific world have as much access to the journals as the Nobel laureates? They may shudder in the labs, but we may one day find out.

[stylin19a]

Whaq’s to peer review ? isn’t the original data gone ?

[Ciexyz]

Get the word out!

[GAB-1955]

No; the compilation that they did of the original data is gone, but if you go back to the weather records from around the world, the data are still there.

[Oldexpat]

Let’s face facts. In the case of the IPCC the peer to peer review on the internet has resulted in a big rethink. Never again will a peer reviewed article that is published by a journal or NGO be considered reviewed until the internet has had a chance to work on the original data and background info.

[stylin19a]

thanks

[SeeSharp]

The peer review process has always been a system of gatekeepers designed to maintain the status quo (ask any Austrian economist). The definitive critique was The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn written forty-six years ago.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[FlingWingFlyer]

I don’t think they need a “peer review”. They need a whole ****load of new thermometers with an easy to read and understand operator’s manual.

[JLS]

No the original data is there. Their data after they manipulated the data is what is gone. So the original data for some of their figures and graphs are gone.

[TalBlack]

“Reform of peer review” my ass! Peer review worked fine up until lately. You can’t reform a process being employed by dishonest people.

[justa-hairyape]

Just to give you an idea of how the regressives pervert science, in my field the private science shot way ahead of the public science. Now we have articles being written by outside credentialed ‘experts’, accepted members of the public science community, who are trying to tell us what we really should be doing. They are trying to mold our private science to fit the incorrect public science. The articles they write are complete fantasy.

[Publius6961]

Bookmark
For acsess to long Guardian 12-part Special Investigation Link

[sig226]

I remain skeptical. The first article of the series was called, “Battle over climate data turned into war between scientists and sceptics.” Right away, anyone who supports the AGW theory is a scientist, and anyone who disagrees with the theory is not a scientist. Never mind that tens of thousands of scientists do not agree with the theory. I’ll read the rest of it, but I expect a whitewash.

[DarkSavant]

What’s your field, and how its conclusions different than the publicly funded science? If it’s proprietary that’s fine, but I have a back and forth with a buddy of mine about this subject and could always use more ammo.

[justa-hairyape]

There was no public science at the start. In fact, the public science at the time, stated that what we do, could not be done, so don't bother trying. It was as wrong then, as it is now.

[justa-hairyape]

Its the Guardian. The name historically had probably referred to Guardian of the State, at least the writers and editors appear to have thought that. Any decent coverage Free Science gets from that outfit should be appreciated and suspect at the same time.