Section 5.6 Responses

5. It is alleged that there have been improper attempts to influence the peer review system and a violation of IPCC procedures in attempting to prevent the publication of opposing ideas. It is alleged that there has been an attempt to subvert the peer review process and exclude publication of scientific articles that do not support the Jones-Mann position on global climate change. A paper by Soon & Balunias was published in the Journal Climate Research arguing that the 20th century was abnormally warm.An email from Professor Michael Mann on 11th March 2003 contained the following: “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”  The  allegation is that journals might be pressured to reject submitted articles that do not support a particular view of climate change. In an email to a fellow researcher in June 2003, Briffa wrote: “Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting (an unnamed paper) to support Dave Stahle‟s and really as soon as you can.” In an email to Mann on 8th July 2004, Jones wrote: “The other paper by MM is just garbage. […] 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 allegation is of an attempt to prevent ideas being published and the author being prepared to subvert the peer review process for a journal and to undermine the IPCC principle of accounting properly for contradictory views. 

QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS 

Addition questions with regard to Peer review

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Section 5.6 Responses”

  1. jimchip Says:

    There’s a study than can be done wrt to their adding authors to papers or use of co-authorship. Not high on my todo list given the narrowness of the scope of these questions but:

    1056133160.txt

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Phil Jones

    Subject: Re: VERY VERY IMPORTANT
    Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:19:20 -0400
    Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, mann@virginia.edu

    Hi Phil et al,
    Re, Malcolm co-authorship–big oversight on my part. Can you ask Ellen if we can add his
    name (i.e., just say it was ‘accidentally left off’), where it belongs alphabetically in
    the list.
    I’ve talked to Malcolm on the phone. The PC #1 *is* the right one–but Malcolm has raised
    the valid point that we need to cover our behinds on what was done here, lest we be
    vulnerable to the snipings of the Idsos and co (i.e., that non-climatic influences on
    recent growth were nominally dealt w/, as in MBH99).
    Malcolm is supposed to be sending some text to Phil.
    So, can we incorporate his small bit of text, and add his name, and then resubmit to AGU
    ASAP?
    Thanks all for all the help here. Now, I better get back to my newlywed wife!
    mike
    At 05:25 PM 6/20/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:

    Mike,
    Malcolm has just called Keith. He’s been with Ray. Apart from probably being a
    little
    miffed off he’s not on the article, he says that the W. US series in Figure 2 is wrong.
    He says
    it looks the first PC (which I said it was), but that this isn’t the corrected one (for
    CO2 growth
    effects). Can you check whether it is the right one? Malcolm says that Idso (who was
    on
    E&E) will say that the increase in that series is not climatic but due to
    fertilization. This
    would not look good obviously. Idso was on a paper with Don Graybill re fertilisation
    effects
    on bristlecones.
    If you need to send a revised series for this top series in Fig 2 then send it to
    Tim.
    Tim has done this plot so can make the alterations if another series is needed. If you
    think
    that the series is OK then we’ll leave it. If you do change it will affect Fig 2 of
    the GRL also
    but probably not to any noticeable effect – at least at the size the plot will be.
    Tim will send round the copyright forms to all and reprint forms. Tell Tim if you
    want any.
    Seems like the pdf will do.
    Cheers
    Phil

  2. jimchip Says:

    1056440026.txt Authorship

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Ellen Mosley-Thompson , Phil Jones

    Subject: Re: 2003ES000354 Decision Letter
    Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:33:46 -0400
    Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, mann@virginia.edu

    Hi Ellen,
    I’m still travelling, and have only intermittent email access. I’m pretty sure Phil is
    travelling now too, so I’m hoping Keith or Tim can help out here.
    I think we actually discussed two small changes from the final version Phil sent you. This
    involved adding Malcolm Hughes as a co-author (his name was accidentally left off the
    list), and changing the wording of one sentence slightly. I believe that Tim and Keith have
    these changes, and hopefully they can submit this via GEMS? If not, will have to wait until
    Phil or I have a solid internet connection to do this (that will likely be at IUGG in
    Sapporo in about 2 weeks).
    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Phil–if you’re reading email, any way you can
    help out here?
    thanks all,
    mike
    At 04:36 PM 6/23/2003 -0400, Ellen Mosley-Thompson wrote:

    Phil,
    I just learned from AGU that you did not submit the revised version back to AGU via the
    GEMS system. Can you or Mike do this as soon as possible? I would like to get this
    paper moving through AGU. Fred Spilhaus still has to approve it – he approves all Forum
    pieces – so this adds a layer that will cost us time.
    Thanks
    Ellen
    P.S. I have copied everyone who might be able to handle this in your and Mike’s
    absence. Thanks
    At 05:13 PM 06/20/2003 +0100, you wrote:

    Dear Ellen,
    I’m off on Sunday, but I’ve managed to get the revisions done. The revised pdf is
    attached. This contains a reduced size manuscript by about 10 lines and we’ve reduced
    the
    references to the absolute minimum. This is still 30. If we go any lower we have to
    change the
    figures. As we are commenting on a paper we need to specifically reference all the
    series we
    use.
    Thanks for going through so quickly.
    If further changes are required I won’t be here so can you email either Keith
    Briffa
    or Tim Osborn (k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk) .
    I will ask Keith and Tim to get the copyright forms rolling.
    Cheers
    Phil
    At 13:50 18/06/03 -0400, eos@agu.org wrote:

    Dear Dr. Mann: (copy to Phil Jones)
    I am pleased to accept “On Past Temperatures and Anomalous late-20th Century Warmth” for
    publication in Eos with the provision that in your final submission you modify to the
    first paragraph slightly so that it is fully consistent with the text of the AGU
    statement on climate change and greenhouse gases:
    [1]http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
    Note that first sentence of your paper indicates that the AGU statement includes the
    inference that there is a high probability …. I cannot find the words high
    probability in the AGU statement (unlike IPCC that does state “high probability.”). It
    is critical that the introductory paragraph is carefully constructed so as not to
    diminish any of the points you make in the Forum piece. I suggest a modification of
    your first paragraph – please feel free to further modify this.
    Evidence from …. Gases,” that there is a compelling basis for concern over future
    climate changes, including increases in global mean surface temperatures, due to
    increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil fuel burning.
    If this is too long, you might wish to break it into two sentences. This says the same
    thing as your original intro sentence but is fully consistent with the text of the AGU
    statement.
    Also in the first paragraph would you agree to this change?
    … such anomalous warm cannot be fully explained natural factors …… (Added the
    word “fully” to indicate that some but not all of the anomalous warming can be explained
    by natural factors.)
    Another suggestion is to remove the second reference to the AGU policy (second
    paragraph). What about … these claims in light of the fact that they have ……
    The content of the Forum piece is just fine, but I did find a few minor problems that
    you need to fix in the final submission.
    1) 3rd paragraph line 8 – reference to Jones et al. (1998) – this date occurs in several
    places in the paper and should be Jones et al. 1999; e.g., point (2) line 3
    2) page 2 – the second (2) point
    last 3 lines: remove double period after U.S.; also that sentence reads awkwardly – try
    a comma after the word ‘cancelling’.
    3) the second paragraph of point 2 (2); last three lines: this is awkward; the word
    “apparent” is out of place; I think this should this read ….. apparent coldness and
    warmth differ …..
    4) point 3) last line of first paragraph – change … insight to …. (Remove in from
    into)
    5) references – the Jones et al. 1999 reference is formatted differently than the rest
    (put date at end).
    Finally – everywhere throughout the text et al should be corrected to et al (The period
    is consistently absent)
    Before publication, your article will be edited to reflect the Eos newspaper style,
    including a possible change in the headline. We will send the edited version to you for
    review and final approval before the article is published.
    Please note that before we can proceed with production work on your submission, a
    copyright transfer agreement and reprint order form must be completed and returned to
    AGU. These forms may be printed* from the AGU web site:
    [2]http://www.agu.org/pubs/journal_forms/EosCopyright.pdf
    [3]http://www.agu.org/pubs/journal_forms/EosReprint_orders.pdf.
    For information on the production process, please contact Shermonta Grant, Eos
    Production Coordinator, at +202.777.7533 or sgrant@agu.org.
    In the absence of information from you to the contrary, I am assuming that all authors
    listed on the manuscript concur with publication in its final accepted form and that
    neither this manuscript nor any of its essential components have been published
    previously or submitted to another journal. The AGU Guidelines for Publication
    emphasize that: “It is unethical for an author to publish manuscripts describing
    essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication.”
    Thank you for your contribution to Eos.
    Sincerely,
    Ellen Mosley-Thompson
    Editor, Eos

    Prof. Phil Jones

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: