Steve McIntyre has an insightful post today titled
I recommend reading the post with respect to the challenges of the publication of research in the International Journal of Climate that conflicts with the IPCC viewpoint. I have has similar experiences with this journal. His comment
“The reviewers of our first submission refused to permit the editor to provide us with their actual reviews, requiring the editor to paraphrase their reviews.”
is particularly disturbing. In my tenure as Chief Editor of the Monthly Weather and Co-Chief-Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Science, we would never have tolerated such a suppression of information.
The review process with respect to Atmospheric Science Letters, however, as Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have documented in the post and in one of the comments, is how the process should proceed. The next step, for those who disagree with the findings in McKitrick et al 2010, is to publish analyses that refute their findings. This is how the scientific process should proceed.
Ross’s paper can be obtained from
McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) “Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series” in press at Atmospheric Science Letters.