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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,