Advertisement

Flaws in Climate Questioning Paper

A recent paper that fueled skepticism about the severity of climate change predicted by current models contained fundamental errors and false claims.

By | September 6, 2011

image: Flaws in Climate Questioning Paper Global warming predictions mapWikimedia Commons, Robert A. Rohde

Global warming predictions mapWIKIMEDIA COMMONS, ROBERT A. ROHDE

An editorial published Friday (September 2) in the journal Remote Sensing points to “fundamental methodological errors” and “false claims” in a paper that challenged current estimates of climate change, published in the same journal just 6 weeks ago.

When the paper was first published, it was touted in the media as evidence that the global warming threat may be overblown. The authors used NASA satellite data to suggest that climate models overestimate the amount of heat the atmosphere retains, and thus misjudge the warming greenhouse effect. Climate researchers weren’t convinced, however.

The paper “essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents,” Wolfgang Wagner of Vienna University of Technology, the journal’s editor-in-chief, wrote in the editorial. “This…was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal.”

"I don't blame anybody in the publication,” Wagner told ScienceInsider, but he has decided to resign all the same. "Someone has to take responsibility. As editor-in-chief, I should be the one."

The journal has not stated whether or not it plans to retract the paper, but Wagner hopes his resignation will signal that “Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.”

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Mike

Mike

Posts: 1457

September 6, 2011

What this just highlights is the corruption of the peer review process. How come any evidence contrary to the inflated CO2 warming takes years to get published (if ever), yet this rebuttal could be got out in 18 days?

And this isn't the only example. Time and time and time again there is example after example where any evidence contrary to inflated CO2 warming gets repressed and any rubbish gets the nod to print from the "buddy" review of climate "science" as is obvious when reading the climategate emails.

This is blatant corruption. Science isn't about repressing evidence from one or other side. It isn't about issuing politically motivated rebuttals. It is about get reliable evidence and then having open and honest debate about the science.

Avatar of: Festus

Festus

Posts: 1

September 6, 2011

Consider it this way. If I publish an article claiming to overturn another widely accepted scientific explanation--say, the way glaciers form--you can bet that my paper will be carefully read. After all, scientists reached consensus on glacier formation and on anthropogenic climate warming only after thousands of studies and papers. It makes perfect sense that a single paper claiming to overturn an international consensus would be carefully scrutinized. Your peculiar ideas about peer review and your baseless charges about scientists are because you WANT to believe something that there is just no evidence for. Watch out for that habit. It can get you into trouble.

Avatar of: j m berg

Anonymous

September 6, 2011

By this account it is not the editorial that received an irregular peer review, it is the original paper. The editor-in-chief is expressing an editorial opinion that the peer review of the paper was inadequate, and that the paper should not have been accepted. Though this is an opinion, he apparently holds it strongly, since he is resigning as a consequence.

An editorial from the editor-in-chief of the journal is not a research publication, and is not subject to peer review. A decision to retract the paper would have to be justified by more than the EIC's opinion. Perhaps this process is now underway.

Avatar of: Trnsplnt

Anonymous

September 6, 2011

Haseler's anger stems from common anti-science propaganda misinformation about the scientific process and scientists.  It's a common misconception, reinforced in many science classrooms, that science is balanced and "open minded", and that conclusions are relative to the bias of the scientist making them.  It's just an extension of what people are familiar with in (for example) journalism where the reporter is supposed to represent "all sides".  And this is how most people get their science news: digested and reported by some form of journalist who isn't interested in the objective truth and what the limits of the error is. 

Of course, this isn't how science is done, and it's a hard concept to get across to kids when so much else of what we teach them is couched in relativism.  Rather than teaching the public that science is what scientists do, that there is authority in the consensus opinion of the professional community, education colleges prepare our teachers to instruct their students that they should analyze the data themselves and come to their own conclusions, as though they had the resources and experience to do that.  Political agenda driven anti-science movements (anti-evolution, abortion, climate, economics, history, archeology, you name it) take advantage of this lack of understanding of science and the scientific community and successfully argue that there must be balance because some ideologically driven crackpots have set up a "think tank".  Alot of scientists are naive enough, or self-serving enough, to do along with it.

Avatar of: Intercept Media

Intercept Media

Posts: 1

September 6, 2011

It seems the timing of this "resignation instead of a retraction" fiasco is designed to distract attention away from the CERN and CLOUD study.  Best ask the PR firm hired by East Anglia's CRU.

Avatar of: Wright5579

Anonymous

September 6, 2011

Jef,

The editorial makes no mention of "false claims."  Please edit your first paragraph.

Avatar of: TheSciAdmin

TheSciAdmin

Posts: 56

September 6, 2011

Thanks for your comment. The editorial says that a main goal of peer review is "to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims," and goes on to state that the July paper "is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published." Thus, while the editorial frames the problem as an issue with the peer review process, it does point to errors in the paper that need to be addressed.

Thanks for reading,
Jef Akst, editor, The Scientist

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

What this just highlights is the corruption of the peer review process. How come any evidence contrary to the inflated CO2 warming takes years to get published (if ever), yet this rebuttal could be got out in 18 days?

And this isn't the only example. Time and time and time again there is example after example where any evidence contrary to inflated CO2 warming gets repressed and any rubbish gets the nod to print from the "buddy" review of climate "science" as is obvious when reading the climategate emails.

This is blatant corruption. Science isn't about repressing evidence from one or other side. It isn't about issuing politically motivated rebuttals. It is about get reliable evidence and then having open and honest debate about the science.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

Consider it this way. If I publish an article claiming to overturn another widely accepted scientific explanation--say, the way glaciers form--you can bet that my paper will be carefully read. After all, scientists reached consensus on glacier formation and on anthropogenic climate warming only after thousands of studies and papers. It makes perfect sense that a single paper claiming to overturn an international consensus would be carefully scrutinized. Your peculiar ideas about peer review and your baseless charges about scientists are because you WANT to believe something that there is just no evidence for. Watch out for that habit. It can get you into trouble.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

By this account it is not the editorial that received an irregular peer review, it is the original paper. The editor-in-chief is expressing an editorial opinion that the peer review of the paper was inadequate, and that the paper should not have been accepted. Though this is an opinion, he apparently holds it strongly, since he is resigning as a consequence.

An editorial from the editor-in-chief of the journal is not a research publication, and is not subject to peer review. A decision to retract the paper would have to be justified by more than the EIC's opinion. Perhaps this process is now underway.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

Haseler's anger stems from common anti-science propaganda misinformation about the scientific process and scientists.  It's a common misconception, reinforced in many science classrooms, that science is balanced and "open minded", and that conclusions are relative to the bias of the scientist making them.  It's just an extension of what people are familiar with in (for example) journalism where the reporter is supposed to represent "all sides".  And this is how most people get their science news: digested and reported by some form of journalist who isn't interested in the objective truth and what the limits of the error is. 

Of course, this isn't how science is done, and it's a hard concept to get across to kids when so much else of what we teach them is couched in relativism.  Rather than teaching the public that science is what scientists do, that there is authority in the consensus opinion of the professional community, education colleges prepare our teachers to instruct their students that they should analyze the data themselves and come to their own conclusions, as though they had the resources and experience to do that.  Political agenda driven anti-science movements (anti-evolution, abortion, climate, economics, history, archeology, you name it) take advantage of this lack of understanding of science and the scientific community and successfully argue that there must be balance because some ideologically driven crackpots have set up a "think tank".  Alot of scientists are naive enough, or self-serving enough, to do along with it.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

It seems the timing of this "resignation instead of a retraction" fiasco is designed to distract attention away from the CERN and CLOUD study.  Best ask the PR firm hired by East Anglia's CRU.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

Jef,

The editorial makes no mention of "false claims."  Please edit your first paragraph.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

Thanks for your comment. The editorial says that a main goal of peer review is "to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims," and goes on to state that the July paper "is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published." Thus, while the editorial frames the problem as an issue with the peer review process, it does point to errors in the paper that need to be addressed.

Thanks for reading,
Jef Akst, editor, The Scientist

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

What this just highlights is the corruption of the peer review process. How come any evidence contrary to the inflated CO2 warming takes years to get published (if ever), yet this rebuttal could be got out in 18 days?

And this isn't the only example. Time and time and time again there is example after example where any evidence contrary to inflated CO2 warming gets repressed and any rubbish gets the nod to print from the "buddy" review of climate "science" as is obvious when reading the climategate emails.

This is blatant corruption. Science isn't about repressing evidence from one or other side. It isn't about issuing politically motivated rebuttals. It is about get reliable evidence and then having open and honest debate about the science.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

Consider it this way. If I publish an article claiming to overturn another widely accepted scientific explanation--say, the way glaciers form--you can bet that my paper will be carefully read. After all, scientists reached consensus on glacier formation and on anthropogenic climate warming only after thousands of studies and papers. It makes perfect sense that a single paper claiming to overturn an international consensus would be carefully scrutinized. Your peculiar ideas about peer review and your baseless charges about scientists are because you WANT to believe something that there is just no evidence for. Watch out for that habit. It can get you into trouble.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

By this account it is not the editorial that received an irregular peer review, it is the original paper. The editor-in-chief is expressing an editorial opinion that the peer review of the paper was inadequate, and that the paper should not have been accepted. Though this is an opinion, he apparently holds it strongly, since he is resigning as a consequence.

An editorial from the editor-in-chief of the journal is not a research publication, and is not subject to peer review. A decision to retract the paper would have to be justified by more than the EIC's opinion. Perhaps this process is now underway.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

Haseler's anger stems from common anti-science propaganda misinformation about the scientific process and scientists.  It's a common misconception, reinforced in many science classrooms, that science is balanced and "open minded", and that conclusions are relative to the bias of the scientist making them.  It's just an extension of what people are familiar with in (for example) journalism where the reporter is supposed to represent "all sides".  And this is how most people get their science news: digested and reported by some form of journalist who isn't interested in the objective truth and what the limits of the error is. 

Of course, this isn't how science is done, and it's a hard concept to get across to kids when so much else of what we teach them is couched in relativism.  Rather than teaching the public that science is what scientists do, that there is authority in the consensus opinion of the professional community, education colleges prepare our teachers to instruct their students that they should analyze the data themselves and come to their own conclusions, as though they had the resources and experience to do that.  Political agenda driven anti-science movements (anti-evolution, abortion, climate, economics, history, archeology, you name it) take advantage of this lack of understanding of science and the scientific community and successfully argue that there must be balance because some ideologically driven crackpots have set up a "think tank".  Alot of scientists are naive enough, or self-serving enough, to do along with it.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

It seems the timing of this "resignation instead of a retraction" fiasco is designed to distract attention away from the CERN and CLOUD study.  Best ask the PR firm hired by East Anglia's CRU.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

Jef,

The editorial makes no mention of "false claims."  Please edit your first paragraph.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 6, 2011

Thanks for your comment. The editorial says that a main goal of peer review is "to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims," and goes on to state that the July paper "is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published." Thus, while the editorial frames the problem as an issue with the peer review process, it does point to errors in the paper that need to be addressed.

Thanks for reading,
Jef Akst, editor, The Scientist

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

The editorial most certainly does not "point to errors in the paper" as you assert in the comment above, not one, zero, zilch. And that is a major problem with Herr Dr. Wagner's allegations, he doesn't back them up with any specifics..  what a shame!

Actually, The Scientist should issues a correction for it's misleading  headline which categorically states that the paper "contained fundamental errors and false claims". Dr. Wagner only wrote, based on criticisms in "various internet discussion fora" that the paper was "most likely problematic". "Most likely problematic" is in no way the same as your headline stating that there are "Flaws in Climate Questioning Paper".

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

Jef,

You claim that Wagner points to specific scientific errors. Please tell us what those are, or retract this article and apologize to Dr. Spencer.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

Well, now that we've all read Dressler's response, we can see that Wolfy's objections were over exaggerated.  There were no false claims nor fundamentally flawed approaches, simply differences of opinion.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

This smells fishy. Why would an EiC resign rather than pursue a retraction of the paper? The Eic admits ignorance pertaining to subject matter in the SB11 paper and relied on a non-peer reviewed information from a blog in deciding to resign rather than researching the peer reviewed literature. The paper has not been retracted to my knowledge. To me the real story is why the EiC acted in such an irresponsible and prejudiced manner. There has to be more behind this.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

 Windy, Wagner's real job, is at the University of Vienna.  Wagner is running the “International Soil Moisture Network“ which is dependent upon the GEWEX or Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment Scientific Steering Group........  The chairman?........... A Kevin Trenberth. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

Casting aspersions on the paper without backing it up with specifics is dishonest, particularly in the sciences.

Panic is striking the warmist scammers as they make more, louder, and more absurd claims every day.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

I have no doubt that some kind of global weather change is occurring (it is an cyclical occurrence every few thousand years), but the so-called 'scientists' insist on citing CO2 as the cause of warming, when in fact it is the result.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

And still no apologies to Dr. Spencer for repeating the drivel wrote by Wagner?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

No need, the effort to hype the CERN study as refuting global climate change will fall of its own weight. It is a long way from doing any such thing.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

Much like the resignation letter, your comment in content free.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

Ah, BUT the "consensus o anthropogenic climate warming was NOT based on thousands of studies and papers. It was created out of nothing by the IPCC and billions of dollars used to buy cooperative (well-funded) scientists. The original "consensus" was created by one paper by Orestes who used very questionable techniques and later papers which sifted lists to gain the desired answers. One "key" recent paper is based on about 75 scientists and concludes a 97% consensus. The starting list was over 3000 scientists. Only a few responded. Biased results much?

On the other hand we have over 31,000 phD's who contest the anthropogenic claims. And there are hundreds, if not thousands of papers that do not support, but whose results contradict the warmist model.SOme science is based on real scientific processing, AGW is a political agenda and the IPCC was created as a pseudo-scientific propaganda arm. Key shills for the IPCC, the data keepers, Jones, Mann, Hansen, etc., work head in butt for the IPCC agenda.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

The editorial most certainly does not "point to errors in the paper" as you assert in the comment above, not one, zero, zilch. And that is a major problem with Herr Dr. Wagner's allegations, he doesn't back them up with any specifics..  what a shame!

Actually, The Scientist should issues a correction for it's misleading  headline which categorically states that the paper "contained fundamental errors and false claims". Dr. Wagner only wrote, based on criticisms in "various internet discussion fora" that the paper was "most likely problematic". "Most likely problematic" is in no way the same as your headline stating that there are "Flaws in Climate Questioning Paper".

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

Jef,

You claim that Wagner points to specific scientific errors. Please tell us what those are, or retract this article and apologize to Dr. Spencer.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

Well, now that we've all read Dressler's response, we can see that Wolfy's objections were over exaggerated.  There were no false claims nor fundamentally flawed approaches, simply differences of opinion.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

This smells fishy. Why would an EiC resign rather than pursue a retraction of the paper? The Eic admits ignorance pertaining to subject matter in the SB11 paper and relied on a non-peer reviewed information from a blog in deciding to resign rather than researching the peer reviewed literature. The paper has not been retracted to my knowledge. To me the real story is why the EiC acted in such an irresponsible and prejudiced manner. There has to be more behind this.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

 Windy, Wagner's real job, is at the University of Vienna.  Wagner is running the “International Soil Moisture Network“ which is dependent upon the GEWEX or Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment Scientific Steering Group........  The chairman?........... A Kevin Trenberth. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

Casting aspersions on the paper without backing it up with specifics is dishonest, particularly in the sciences.

Panic is striking the warmist scammers as they make more, louder, and more absurd claims every day.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

I have no doubt that some kind of global weather change is occurring (it is an cyclical occurrence every few thousand years), but the so-called 'scientists' insist on citing CO2 as the cause of warming, when in fact it is the result.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

And still no apologies to Dr. Spencer for repeating the drivel wrote by Wagner?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

No need, the effort to hype the CERN study as refuting global climate change will fall of its own weight. It is a long way from doing any such thing.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

Much like the resignation letter, your comment in content free.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 7, 2011

Ah, BUT the "consensus o anthropogenic climate warming was NOT based on thousands of studies and papers. It was created out of nothing by the IPCC and billions of dollars used to buy cooperative (well-funded) scientists. The original "consensus" was created by one paper by Orestes who used very questionable techniques and later papers which sifted lists to gain the desired answers. One "key" recent paper is based on about 75 scientists and concludes a 97% consensus. The starting list was over 3000 scientists. Only a few responded. Biased results much?

On the other hand we have over 31,000 phD's who contest the anthropogenic claims. And there are hundreds, if not thousands of papers that do not support, but whose results contradict the warmist model.SOme science is based on real scientific processing, AGW is a political agenda and the IPCC was created as a pseudo-scientific propaganda arm. Key shills for the IPCC, the data keepers, Jones, Mann, Hansen, etc., work head in butt for the IPCC agenda.

Avatar of: SoCalSurfman

Anonymous

September 7, 2011

The editorial most certainly does not "point to errors in the paper" as you assert in the comment above, not one, zero, zilch. And that is a major problem with Herr Dr. Wagner's allegations, he doesn't back them up with any specifics..  what a shame!

Actually, The Scientist should issues a correction for it's misleading  headline which categorically states that the paper "contained fundamental errors and false claims". Dr. Wagner only wrote, based on criticisms in "various internet discussion fora" that the paper was "most likely problematic". "Most likely problematic" is in no way the same as your headline stating that there are "Flaws in Climate Questioning Paper".

Avatar of: SteveGoddard

SteveGoddard

Posts: 1

September 7, 2011

Jef,

You claim that Wagner points to specific scientific errors. Please tell us what those are, or retract this article and apologize to Dr. Spencer.

Avatar of: Suyts

Anonymous

September 7, 2011

Well, now that we've all read Dressler's response, we can see that Wolfy's objections were over exaggerated.  There were no false claims nor fundamentally flawed approaches, simply differences of opinion.

Avatar of: Windy

Anonymous

September 7, 2011

This smells fishy. Why would an EiC resign rather than pursue a retraction of the paper? The Eic admits ignorance pertaining to subject matter in the SB11 paper and relied on a non-peer reviewed information from a blog in deciding to resign rather than researching the peer reviewed literature. The paper has not been retracted to my knowledge. To me the real story is why the EiC acted in such an irresponsible and prejudiced manner. There has to be more behind this.

Avatar of: Suyts

Anonymous

September 7, 2011

 Windy, Wagner's real job, is at the University of Vienna.  Wagner is running the “International Soil Moisture Network“ which is dependent upon the GEWEX or Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment Scientific Steering Group........  The chairman?........... A Kevin Trenberth. 

Avatar of: CaptainH

CaptainH

Posts: 1457

September 7, 2011

Casting aspersions on the paper without backing it up with specifics is dishonest, particularly in the sciences.

Panic is striking the warmist scammers as they make more, louder, and more absurd claims every day.

Avatar of: starman1695

starman1695

Posts: 1457

September 7, 2011

I have no doubt that some kind of global weather change is occurring (it is an cyclical occurrence every few thousand years), but the so-called 'scientists' insist on citing CO2 as the cause of warming, when in fact it is the result.

Avatar of: Suyts

Anonymous

September 7, 2011

And still no apologies to Dr. Spencer for repeating the drivel wrote by Wagner?

Avatar of: Tomgraywind

Anonymous

September 7, 2011

No need, the effort to hype the CERN study as refuting global climate change will fall of its own weight. It is a long way from doing any such thing.

Avatar of: Suyts

Anonymous

September 7, 2011

Much like the resignation letter, your comment in content free.

Avatar of: CaptainH

CaptainH

Posts: 1457

September 7, 2011

Ah, BUT the "consensus o anthropogenic climate warming was NOT based on thousands of studies and papers. It was created out of nothing by the IPCC and billions of dollars used to buy cooperative (well-funded) scientists. The original "consensus" was created by one paper by Orestes who used very questionable techniques and later papers which sifted lists to gain the desired answers. One "key" recent paper is based on about 75 scientists and concludes a 97% consensus. The starting list was over 3000 scientists. Only a few responded. Biased results much?

On the other hand we have over 31,000 phD's who contest the anthropogenic claims. And there are hundreds, if not thousands of papers that do not support, but whose results contradict the warmist model.SOme science is based on real scientific processing, AGW is a political agenda and the IPCC was created as a pseudo-scientific propaganda arm. Key shills for the IPCC, the data keepers, Jones, Mann, Hansen, etc., work head in butt for the IPCC agenda.

September 8, 2011

j m berg - Wagner clearly wrote that the peer-review process worked as expected. And there is no plan for retracting the paper. Please inform yourself.

September 8, 2011

This is a sad day for "The Scientist". At best, Jef Akst shows no understanding and little critical thinking, preferring a cheap shot of a title instead, and the writing of a science-free article.

Note for example how Wagner's original editorial says "MOST LIKELY problematic". Even the article above puts “fundamental methodological errorsâ€쳌 and “false claimsâ€쳌 both in quotes: yet the title baselessly goes for "CONTAINED", then forgets the quotes, as if it was all a statement of fact. 

All of that, without even the tiniest hint of what the errors and false claims are, and why they would make the original paper "most likely problematic". Note eg how in better days The Scientist took care of "citation amnesia" in a more serious way http://classic.the-scientist.c... rather than claiming it as the basis for accusations of "fundamental errors".

ps The more I look at it, the more it seems as if Jef Akst played "broken telephone" with himself. Please don't make me misunderstand what the Nut-shell is about.

Do get the whole thing fixed, and quick!!

September 8, 2011

correction..."Jef" stands for "Jennifer"...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 8, 2011

j m berg - Wagner clearly wrote that the peer-review process worked as expected. And there is no plan for retracting the paper. Please inform yourself.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 8, 2011

This is a sad day for "The Scientist". At best, Jef Akst shows no understanding and little critical thinking, preferring a cheap shot of a title instead, and the writing of a science-free article.

Note for example how Wagner's original editorial says "MOST LIKELY problematic". Even the article above puts “fundamental methodological errorsâ€쳌 and “false claimsâ€쳌 both in quotes: yet the title baselessly goes for "CONTAINED", then forgets the quotes, as if it was all a statement of fact. 

All of that, without even the tiniest hint of what the errors and false claims are, and why they would make the original paper "most likely problematic". Note eg how in better days The Scientist took care of "citation amnesia" in a more serious way http://classic.the-scientist.c... rather than claiming it as the basis for accusations of "fundamental errors".

ps The more I look at it, the more it seems as if Jef Akst played "broken telephone" with himself. Please don't make me misunderstand what the Nut-shell is about.

Do get the whole thing fixed, and quick!!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 8, 2011

correction..."Jef" stands for "Jennifer"...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 8, 2011

j m berg - Wagner clearly wrote that the peer-review process worked as expected. And there is no plan for retracting the paper. Please inform yourself.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 8, 2011

This is a sad day for "The Scientist". At best, Jef Akst shows no understanding and little critical thinking, preferring a cheap shot of a title instead, and the writing of a science-free article.

Note for example how Wagner's original editorial says "MOST LIKELY problematic". Even the article above puts “fundamental methodological errorsâ€쳌 and “false claimsâ€쳌 both in quotes: yet the title baselessly goes for "CONTAINED", then forgets the quotes, as if it was all a statement of fact. 

All of that, without even the tiniest hint of what the errors and false claims are, and why they would make the original paper "most likely problematic". Note eg how in better days The Scientist took care of "citation amnesia" in a more serious way http://classic.the-scientist.c... rather than claiming it as the basis for accusations of "fundamental errors".

ps The more I look at it, the more it seems as if Jef Akst played "broken telephone" with himself. Please don't make me misunderstand what the Nut-shell is about.

Do get the whole thing fixed, and quick!!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

September 8, 2011

correction..."Jef" stands for "Jennifer"...

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist
Life Technologies