Milieuzaken:
feiten, getallen en opinies

Peer review

lezende kat: symbool voor peer review

U bent hier: inhoudsopgave -wetenschap- peer review
Afkorting of begrip onbekend ? Raadpleeg ons milieuwoordenboek !

Follow@plattezaken en Facebook of Linkedin

Google
 
Web www.hugovandermolen.nl

Aan het slot van een uitgebreid artikel over de zin en onzin van peer review processen, eindigt Richard Smith (2006) met de volgende conclusie:

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief".

Climategate emails:

From: Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University:

To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.

e-mail to: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.

e-mail to "All tthree", Feb. 21, 2005
I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.


IPCC
Christopher Booker (2018) beschrijft in detail dat, alhoewel het IPCC zich er op voorstaat dat ze in hun rapportages uitsluitend gebruik maken van artikelen in peer reviewed tijdschriften, uit analyses is gebleken dat in sommige van hun rapporten wel tot 33% van de geciteerde artikelen daar niet aan voldeden, met als gevolg allerlei "ongelukken" in hun rapportages, zoals o.a. het zeer snel afsmelten van de Himalaya ijskap.


The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy (bron hier).


Peer reviewers en (gebrek aan) kennis van statistiek

Zonder grondige kennis van statistiek gaat het vaak mis, zelfs in het zgn. "peer reviewed" tijdschrift Nature. Er was een klimaat-amateur voor nodig om fouten in dit artikel (bron volgt nog) over opwarming van de zee aan de kaak te stellen. De reviwers van Nature hadden het niet gezien. Het artikel is een jaar na dat "teruggetrokken", maar de media hadden de ten-onrechte alarmistische inhoud al verspreid.


Peer review is in de klimaatwetenschap verworden tot "Pal review",
zo betoogt Patrick Michaels hier. (zie hier indien de link is vebroken).

Wordt vervolgd...................


Literatuur:

- Booker, Christopher, Global Warming: a case study in Group Think: How science can shed new light on the most important "non-debate" of our time, Global Warming Policy report no. 28, 2018.
- Michaels, Patrick, Peer Reviw And "Pal Review" In Climate Science, Forbes Media, 16-6-2011 (zie hier indien de link is vebroken).
- Pronk, Reynier, Perverse prikkels, Climategate.nl, 24-9-2019
- Smith, Richard (2006) , Peer review: a flawed proces at the heart of science and journals, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr; 99(4): 178-182



U bent hier: inhoudsopgave -wetenschap- peer review
Google
 
Web www.hugovandermolen.nl

Deze website is een activiteit van dr. Hugo H. van der Molen, Copyright 2007 e.v.

Mail ons uw commentaar, aanvullingenen en correcties ! en Facebook of Linkedin