If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of giants
"Inappropriate data filtering skewed a recent study"
It's obviously because we wrote to them about it.Inappropriate 'filtering'?? Cheeses...
Yes, thanks for your support, you probably tipped the balance.
See, James, all of this is just McLean lulling you into a false sense of security. His next paper is sure to prove him right. IIRC he even said so on this very blog.
It's interesting that another current 'Editors' Highlight', in GRL, is also a comment. We mentioned that one in our letter too, so we'd be happy to take the credit (heh); but maybe it's a sign they're rethinking their policy. GRL is the journal that wouldn't accept comments on Lindzen & Choi.
Cool. I keep meaning to write to GRL to find out what their policy really is, because this supposed ban on comments has not really been properly announced AIUI.
Steve, hmm...I thought it was their unpublishable reply that proved us wrong...but I'm breathlessly awaiting his next set of ground-breaking results in any case :-)
I'm speculating, but maybe AGU's recent (entirely peaceful) regime change had something to do with this. It can't have escaped the notice of higher-ups that GRL's dislike of comments is (was) hard to defend given that it means more crap will be left hanging for longer. I suppose that the editors may feel that ideally people would simply ignore the crap, recognizing it as an unavoidable side-effect of GRL's fast response time, but at some point that just looks like trying to have it both ways so as to make the job of the editors easier.Looking at the current list of editors, it also looks as if there may have been a bit of a shift toward more what might be termed "front line" climate scientists of late, noting in particular Noah Diffenbaugh and Eric Rignot. I didn't notice anyone like that in the listing of recent editors.
"Unpublishable"? Sez you! :)
Post a Comment