Skip to main content

Peer review gobbledygook

There was more fuss in the media this week about the politics of the science of global warming. A paper by a group of researchers headed by Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a University of Reading research fellow, was turned down for publication by Environmental Research Letters. The Times had a front page headline 'Scientists in cover up of 'damaging' climate view' suggesting that the paper had been rejected for political rather  than scientific reasons. 

Yesterday the publishers of Environmental Research Letters fought back  by publishing the peer reviewers comments in full. What it reveals is more interesting than the story itself - the sloppiness of the peer review process. Consider this bit of nonsense from one of the reviews:

"The comparison between observation based estimates of [warming] … and model-based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage."  (my emphasis)

What on earth is a 'true global mean'? How do you distinguish it from an 'untrue' one? I don't know what makes a mean 'true' in any sense other than it is a calculation which must also be the case for 'observations'.  I don't understand how an 'estimate' can be 'true' other than in the sense that the estimate was made. I have no idea what the 'truth' is. An estimate may approximate the 'true' figure but it is still an estimate! 

Science as we know uses 'observations' - i.e. measurements. This review regards model 'estimates' as better than 'measured' ones. But this can only be true if the model is fit for purpose and that depends on the validity of the assumptions used in creating the model. 

I am making no judgement about the right and wrong of the rejection of Lennart Bengtsson's paper but the peer review process is not revealed in a good light by this saga. There is no example here of a rigorous process. On the contrary it appears very sloppy indeed. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As