“like being inside Hansens head”

One of my favourite journal-club comments, from back in the days when I did science, about a previous Hansen paper that failed to find favour. I'm hoping to actually read the Hansen Noveau, and hopeful that it isn't just old wine in new bottles, but first a brief comment about comment policy. Blogs without a comment policy but with any degree of popularity tend to have a comment section full of mush. So what of the EGU open review journals? Generally, they're saved by lack of popularity, but as Tamino points out, one of the recent comments is just raving nutjobbery. Revkin, in his much-updated article on the storm, posts an explanation of the policy from Ulrich Pöschl, Chief-Executive Editor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics:

To keep the peer review process efficient and avoid diluting the scientific discussion, only members of the scientific community are invited to post expert comments in the scientific discussion forums of the EGU interactive open access journals. People from outside the scientific community are welcome to read and follow the public review and discussion in the scientific discussion forums, but should pursue further (non-expert) discussions in other more appropriate venues (blogs etc.). Speaking informally: “scientific community” can be broadly defined as scientific researchers with an expert knowledge on the subject of the study under discussion...

Which seems clear enough. So why hasn't the drivel from Nabil Swedan been deleted1, then? Perhaps a blogger or bloggers with a known close connection with the EGU journals might comment?

(I'm just back from holiday, BTW)

Refs

* EGU Open discussions - JA discusses EGU open access in the context of Hansen's paper, but fortunately doesn't cover the point I was talking about.

Notes

1. It got deleted from wki, which has higher standards.

Categories

More like this

One class I'm teaching this semester is a senior seminar focusing on oral communication. It should be a really fun class, and I'm looking forward to it. A major assignment for the semester will involve the students presenting a journal-club style talk on a scientific paper. Before I make them give…
House Science Committee chair Sherry Boehlert--who has countered attacks on science before--isn't going to stand for the current games at NASA that are being played to restrict scientists from speaking. In a letter to NASA administrator Michael Griffin, Boehlert writes the following: It ought to go…
It looks like the first of the BEST papers is published (webcite): A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011 (h/t WUWT) - Richard A. Muller, Robert Rohde, Robert Jacobsen, Elizabeth Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Jonathan Wurtele, Donald Groom…
This was in an earlier EOS (pdf, not available online for institutional subscribers so I found this by flipping through the print!) - number 32 of this year from 11 August. They're trying what Nature tried and dropped and what EGU has been fairly successful with in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics…

Perhaps a blogger or bloggers with a known close connection with the EGU journals might comment?

You called? I suspect that most editors would consider deletion very much as a last resort: alternatively they can simply recommend that the authors ignore the silly comments.

I didn't even know there was a deletion policy per se, nor any limits on who was considered qualified to comment. But obviously in extremis people would act if necessary.

[I was hoping you or Jules stop by; thanks. "I didn't even know there was a deletion policy per se" - I suspect there isn't / wasn't; I think they're making it up as they go along. Perhaps one silly comment isn't enough to bother with -W]

By James Annan (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

The address listed on Nabil Swedan's Pacific Engineering PLLC site is a crappy apartment complex in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, it's probably going to get torn down soon. I grew up in the area and I'm surprised it hasn't been torn down already.

By Chase Stoudt (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

[Spammed - I've just trashed a couple of others that were merely dull; but this self-refuting one raises a smile -W]

He posts over at illconsidered with no better content. As freddy, kai and boris at least.

He's even trying to pretend that he hasn't been trying to sockpuppet fake grassroots support for denier drivel there.

I posted the following on your blog:

"What is silly about the comments?"

Your system generated "your comment is being moderated."

Then your system deleted my comment completely.

Clearly you have nothing of a substance; you are just an air bag.

[Patience, glasshopper -W]

By Nabil Swedan (not verified) on 26 Aug 2015 #permalink

>"But obviously in extremis people would act if necessary."

By 31 Aug, it seems we got to that 'in extremis' situation:
The editor decided to not accept further comments to this thread. Scientifically sound comments on other topics are possible until the end of the discussion phase. F. Dentener

Seems very much in line with James's "alternatively they can simply recommend that the authors ignore the silly comments."

Is it interesting that 'raving nutjobbery' and 'drivel' descriptions by W ignored by Nabil Swedan but 'silly' by James Annan gets questioned?

[Yes indeed, http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/C6375/2015/acpd-15-C6375-2015…, about time really. They should just delete the entire thread -W]