Friday, January 20, 2012


cc: "p.jones" <>,
date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:35:04 -0400
from: "Michael E. Mann" <>
subject: Fwd: Problesm with the review process at Climate Research
to: f034 <>, Clare Goodess <>, Mike Hulme <>

Robert wilby <>,,,, c.goodess@uea,
Mike Hulme <>, p.jones@uea,
PITTOCK Barrie <>,,
Wolfgang Cramer <>,,,
Illegal-Object: Syntax error in To: address found on
To: N.W.Arnell<>
^-missing end of address
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:12:19 -0400
Subject: Problesm with the review process at Climate Research
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by multiproxy.evsc.Virginia.EDU id
Dear All:
Tom Wigley forwarded to me recent correspondance over concerns
about another bad paper that was published in Climate Research
(by Baliunus), and suggested that I forward a copy of an email that
we (after some procrastination) have just sent to de Freitas (see
I might add that we were both independently informed that the
reviewer's "were split". Since both Tom and I were strongly against
publishing the paper, that implies that there were four reviewers,
which of course is highly unusual. We have chosen not to raise
questions about that at this time.
Danny Harvey
Dear Dr. de Freitas:
We have discovered that we were both reviewers of the paper
Revised 21st
century temperature projections by Michaels et al. recently
published in
your journal (vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). In our reviews, we both judged
paper to be in category d (Publication not recommended) because
numerous flaws in the arguments, which we carefully documented.
We now see that the paper has been published almost without
from the original submission, except for a few added paragraphs
either do not address or inadequately address the main objections
that we
raised. The revised manuscript was apparently not subjected to re-
at least not by us. We find this to be most unusual even if the
authors presented a counter-argument to each of our objections, it
is the
normal procedure among reputable journals for the authors reply to
forwarded to the original reviewers for further comment.
We note in this regard that even under the less damning evaluation
category c (Revise and re-submit for additional review), responses
revisions should be sent back to the original referees. Your
decision that
a paper judged totally unacceptable for publication should not
require re-
review is unprecedented in our experience.
We therefore request that you forward to us copies of the authors
responses to our criticisms, together with: (1) your reason for not
sending these responses or the revised manuscript to us; (2) an
explanation for your judgment that the revised paper should be
published in the absence of our re-review; and (3) your reason for
to follow accepted editorial procedures.
Yours truly,
Danny Harvey and
Tom Wigley

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137

No comments:

Post a Comment