TITLE

The Important Whoops, or Climategategate

AUTHOR(S)
WILLIAMS, HART
PUB. DATE
September 2011
SOURCE
Moderate Voice;9/2/2011, p5
SOURCE TYPE
Blog Entry
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article offers the author's insight on the flaws involving peer-reviewed science paper regarding climatic changes. He explores blogs and articles arguing that disagreement is equal to refutation, such as disagreeing with research methodologies and models without considering whether the fundamentals are correct, particularly the papers written by Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama. The author says that a moderate intellectual view should be considered in peer-reviewed papers.
ACCESSION #
65194735

 

Related Articles

  • Trust your robot researcher. Brooks, Michael // New Statesman;5/3/2013, Vol. 142 Issue 5156, p18 

    The article looks at scholarly research as of 2013, focusing on the effectiveness of the peer-review process. The author discusses the difficulty of reviewing current research, which is often based on high volumes of data analyzed using specialized software, and says robots may prove effective...

  • A Message from the Editor-in-Chief. Halkman, A. Kadir // GIDA / The Journal of FOOD;2012, Vol. 37 Issue 2, preceding p63 

    The article presents the author's view on the ethical rule in the preparation of review articles related to food research studies and the publication of these articles in the journal in Turkey. He notes the experts' will to use about 50 references included in review articles published in the...

  • Meeting the Scholarly Project Requirement-Application of Scholarship Criteria beyond Research. Simpson, Deborah; Meurer, Linda; Braza, Diane // Journal of Graduate Medical Education;Mar2012, Vol. 4 Issue 1, p111 

    The article discusses the application of scholarship criteria in meeting the scholarly project requirement. It explains the criteria of a resident scholarly project including clear goals, adequate preparation, and appropriate methods as well as significant results. It also cites the importance...

  • Deciding Whether to Persist With a Paper or Let it Die. Culbertson, Satoris S. // TIP: The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist;Oct2013, Vol. 51 Issue 2, p137 

    The author reflects on deciding whether to persist working on a research paper. She mentions the challenge for authors to continue revising and resubmitting their papers until they obtain approval from reviewers and editors, instances that encourage authors to give up and some reasons for...

  • Peer review in a changing world - preliminary findings of a global study. MULLIGAN, ADRIAN; RAPHAEL, ELLEN // Serials;Mar2010, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p25 

    Peer review is at the core of scholarly publishing; it is the lynchpin around which the whole research information exchange is based. Recently, the process has attracted criticism. In this global study, which was conducted in the later part of 2009, we examine the influences and attitudes of...

  • Philosophical Considerations in the Teaching of Biology: Acknowledgement of Reviewers. Kampourakis, Kostas // Science & Education;Feb2013, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p375 

    An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including the review of manuscripts, comments on authors to all articles and integrity and quality of published scholarly work.

  • Lengthy peer review times: What can be done? Farooq, Imran // Journal of the Irish Dental Association;Feb/Mar2015, Vol. 61 Issue 1, p8 

    A letter to the editor is presented discussing the peer review process in publication.

  • Lengthy peer review times: What can be done? Stassen, Leo F. A. // Journal of the Irish Dental Association;Feb/Mar2015, Vol. 61 Issue 1, p8 

    A response to another letter published within the issue discussing the peer review process in publication is presented.

  • Manuscript Peer Review for Emerging Journals: Where We Go from Here? Beshyah, Salem A.; Elkhammas, Elmahdi A. // Ibnosina Journal of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences;2015, Vol. 7 Issue 5, p155 

    The author offers observation on manuscript peer review for emerging journals which is a cornerstone of assuring quality in academic journalism.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics