Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. recently submitted this paper to Geophysical Research Letters (GRL):From Roger's own blog:
A homogeneous database of global landfalling tropical cyclonesJessica Weinkle* and Roger Pielke, Jr.
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, 1333 Grandview Ave, Campus Box 488, Boulder, Colorado 80309
So imagine that you are an editor at Geophysical Research Letters, a middle tier scientific journal. Let us further suppose that you receive a very straightforward analysis of trends in tropical cyclone landfalls around the world which finds no upwards trends. As editor you decide to send the paper our for peer review and you get the following responses from two reviewers, both of whom find the paper publishable (emphases added):
Seems straightforward enough. It came back with two reviews, both with some corrections, one reviewer suggesting publication without major caveats, the other grudgingly suggesting publication to the editor, Noah Diffenbaugh, and asking for revisions. So far so good (you’d think). But it starts getting weird from here. Pielke Jr. asks this set of questions:
As the editor what would you do?A) Provisionally accept the paper pending a revision that meets the editor’s judgment of responsiveness
B) Provisionally accept the paper pending re-review by the two reviewers
C) Reject the paper
D) Reject the paper and tell the authors that any reconsideration of the paper would have to be accompanied by a detailed response to the two reviewers followed by selection of new reviewers and a restart of the review processIf you picked (D) then you too can be an editor at GRL.
The editor of this blog would have failed as the Editor of Geophysical Research Letters.
And the alarmists say that realists do not get published? Look at the disgrace following Spencer and Braswell and now this.