Ethon brought bad news to Eli, it turns out that Roger was taken off the board of Global Environmental Change because, well, it was the end of his second term, so he was simply not reappointed, and that this was done well before his last hissy fit. This was explained in an Email to Roger which the three chief editors kindly invited Roger to post. Eli, of course, is going to mine this for a while, someone has to feed Ethon but let us get down to brass tax here. 9. In the original appointment letter we wrote that we expected Board Members to review up to five papers per year. We have invited you to review 18 papers in the six years, of which you agreed to review just six and submitted five reviews (on one occasion we uninvited you before submission of your review as the review process had been completed). Your last review was submitted in August 2010. Last year, in 2012, we invited you to review, and you declined to review, in January, May and August.Ah, Eli and Arthur were right, Roger was building resume while shirking work. That gets you canned in the real world.
So, of course, what happens when reality hits the INTERNET's major source of entitlement, why who would think that Roger would take this sitting down
Of course, editorial board membership involves more than simply preparing reviews. For instance, in 2012, we submitted a major research paper to GEC which we have been hard at work revising based on the reviewers comments. I expect we will be re-submitting it elsewhere.Since Roger is a major proponent of openness, Eli eagerly awaits his publishing the reviews he got.
Wait - in what world does writing a research paper and submitting it to a journal count as editorial board work?
ReplyDeleteMaybe Roger should get his friend Megan the undergrad to explain the difference between work one does for an editorial board versus work one creates for an editorial board to do...
-MMM
MMM,
ReplyDeletebut you have to consider, he was doing them a favor by submitting his prestigious, seminal work to them. that should easily take the place of say, 3 years of doing what was expected.
I would also be curious: the Editorial board states that "In addition to yourself, five other Board members have been not been reappointed for the new term and this has been conveyed to them in the past few days by Elsevier." I wonder if any of the other 5 board members that were not reappointed complained about their treatment, or basically just saw that they received a standard form letter terminating their time on the board, shrugged, and moved on with life the way a normal adult would...
ReplyDelete-MMM
Why accept to volunteer for an Elsevier journal, or more generally for any enterprise that does not promote Open Access?
ReplyDeleteAn open letter to Roger (posted on his blog, but cross posted here if he decides to try and disappear it or post it in his trash bin lest it conflict with his desired narrative):
ReplyDelete"Very disappointing Roger, on your part that is. You really ought to cease and desist with the knee-jerk reactions and juvenile temper tantrums. You seem to feel entitled to the benefits (and esteem) of being an editor without putting in the required time and effort.
As for your opinions about Brysse et al. and your silly suggestion above that you are perhaps justified in pulling your paper because "....After Brysse et al. ... ;-) ". Really, you think this is a time to be glib?
Whatever the merits of Brysse et al., one supposed bad paper (at least in your opinion) does give you the right to right off the journal. IMO, you making that generalization amounts to defamation of the journal and its editorial board. Admit it, even though it is so painfully obvious to people following this, you suggested that about GEC because your ego has been dented.
Did you consult with all of your co-authors and obtain their approval before making that public declaration? If yes, could you show us please? I will note, that you seem only too happy to post other correspondence pertaining to this.
Your post and comments on this thread by your uncritical supporters smack of conspiracy theorizing. Instead of hypothesizing and suggesting malfeasance you should done what a responsible adult would do and sort the story out first and then write it up. But that would not garner nearly as much attention for you now would it?
I believe that you have still not provided any compelling whatsoever that the board's decision had anything remotely to do with your post on Brysse et al. obscure blog.
I would also question the ethics of a board member making public disparaging remarks about a paper published in the very journal on whose editorial board they sit.
This is yet another appalling example of you throwing your toys when you do not get your way, you seem to revel in the attention or at least trying to get attention.
Again, how disappointing. GEC is, without a doubt, better off without you. Elsevier may have been gracious, but your behaviour has been anything but.
That you refuse to accept no responsibility whatsoever in the mess that you created for yourself is very telling indeed, and it does not reflect favourably upon you, not in the least. I would not be surprised if future (and current) journals will think twice about inviting you on board once this little saga."
Albatross
OK, in fairness to Roger, my post did not make it through because Blogger would not allow me to login.
ReplyDeleteAlbatross
Again, to be fair (this sucks) when you join an editorial board it is expected that you will submit appropriate manuscripts to that journal rather than others. The last time he published over there was 2007 other than the late lamented submission.
ReplyDeleteThis is really hilarious. It's also a perfect exemplar of the McIntyre style of criticism. Put in essentially no effort of your own, and whine and complain and imply conspiracy when things aren't handed to you on a silver platter. We should treasure this incident and trot it out with each new implication of malfeasance by climate scientists.
ReplyDelete"The scientists are suppressing their critics!"
"oh yeah? You mean like Pielke Jr getting dumped by a journal because he was too lazy to do what he committed to? He thought that was a conspiracy too."
"The Pielke Game"
ReplyDelete-- by Horatio Algeranon
This is how to play the Game
Float conspiracy to fan the flame
Whine and stomp and throw a fit
Instead of reasoning a bit
When the smoke is finally cleared
Claim you must have just misheard
Must be right on top in the game closet at the Pielke homestead. Remember when RP sr implied that NOAA was trying to "cover up" station photos?
Horatio remembers it well. Even wrote a ditty about it: Grassy Knolls and Rabett Holes
Oops, wrong link to Grassy Knolls and Rabett Holes
ReplyDeleteDear gracious Pielke Jr had something quite interesting to say on WUWT:
ReplyDelete"Neil Adger sent me a response for posting. You can see it as an update on the original post:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html
He says cock-up, not conspiracy. I say, don’t tell untruths to start with. Have a look and make up your own mind. Thanks."
To me that looks like he's still playing the victim.
Marco
Albatross' selection would still be interesting. He's an important scholar on Honest Brokering.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, here's my (pending clean-up) selection:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/HonestlyBrokering
My favorite is NG's 20-words redux:
Economist: A will not work, therefore we must do B
Broker: B will never happen, therefore we must do A
Further argument fits the definition of “talking past each other”:
Economist: But B will work
Broker: But A is possible
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/19687951508
Wrong thread. Sorry. Had two comment windows opened.
ReplyDeleteCross posted from Roger's place.
ReplyDelete"Hello Roger,
"Here I think we agree to disagree. As an academic I think it is a higher order responsibility to advance knowledge than it is to affirm institutional allegiance"
You seem to be missing the point. I never suggested that you "affirm to institutional allegiance", please don't misrepresent me. You do not seem to have understood the gist of my comment. I specifically took issue with you, an editor at GEC, making public disparaging and unprofessional remarks on your blog about a paper in that journal. You are entitled to your opinion, but as an academic you are not entitled to your own facts.
The fact remains that your alleged grievance with GEC and conspiracy hypothesizing about GEC was a presumption and unsupported speculation on your part. You seem to hold others to standards that you yourself are not capable of abiding to, as your blog repeatedly demonstrates. An academic (i.e., you) generating a faux scandal is pretty poor/desperate behaviour.
The reason you were dismissed is because you failed in your duties. I find it telling that the other editorial board members who were dismissed in the past did not (to my knowledge) throw public hissy fits and start going round making all kinds of nefarious and unsubstantiated accusations about GEC afterwards.
"If they provide poor service to their volunteers -- including the telling of bald untruths -- you can expect a public expression of dissatisfaction, at least from me."
You continue to try to invert reality and argue a strawman. The fact remains is that your dismissal was precipitated by you, Roger Pielke Jnr., providing poor service to Elsevier. It had nothing whatsoever to do with your disparaging musings about Brysse et al. How that fact continues to evade you is quite bizarre.
"I stand by this post as written, and observe with amusement how it is being spun by the usual suspects on both sides of your little climate science war. Good luck with that;-)"
It is alarming that it is lost on you that it is you who initiated the spin Roger. Your lack of self awareness is quite astounding. Moreover, your steadfast refusal to take responsibility for your sub par performance as editor at GEC and your attempt to spin this story to garner attention for you and to drive your agenda reflects incredibly poorly on you. In fact, the comment by you quoted above appears to be projection on your part.
Could you please address the question I asked earlier about whether or not you consulted with your co-authors about your suggestion/decision to pull your manuscript from GEC? Until you demonstrate otherwise, one can assume that your reticence to speak to that issue suggests that you did not consult with them, or if you did, they were not in agreement with you. Some clarification please, preferably with some supporting evidence.
One last question. Maybe I missed it, but have you apologized to GEC for failing to satisfactorily fulfill your duties there as an editor?
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Albatross"
Another cross post from Roger's blog...he is doubling down, actually I've lost count on how many times he has doubled down.
ReplyDelete"Hello Roger,
Look, you clearly feel that you are the "victim" here, you have even insinuated (without any evidence) that there was some retribution at work. Do note that many other people following this do not agree with you on that. Do note that while you have been fussing and engaging in slander, the other five board members have apparently said "me culpa" and moved on!
What I am trying to encourage you to do is apply some soul searching and exercise some self awareness. Instead you seem hell bent on trying to argue that something much more nefarious is afoot here while making insinuations and accusations about others, while completely ignoring your responsibilities and your role in this.
Now you are of course intelligent, but the danger that comes with that that you can excel at convincing yourself that there is a problem (or that there is not a problem in Lindzen's case). This whole episode makes you look very paranoid.
Do note that the editors have said to you:
“To create clarity let us put this on the record for you… The timing of you receiving a letter from Elsevier is a coincidence.”
“In the original appointment letter we wrote that we expected Board Members to review up to five papers per year. We have invited you to review 18 papers in the six years, of which you agreed to review just six and submitted five reviews (on one occasion we uninvited you before submission of your review as the review process had been completed). Your last review was submitted in August 2010. Last year, in 2012, we invited you to review, and you declined to review, in January, May and August."
Do note, that you declining reviews on 67% of the papers is a very low bar.
Do note, that you are refusing to provide any evidence that you consulted with your co-authors about retracting your manuscript. In the absence of such evidence, it is becoming increasingly likely that you independently made your knee-jerk reaction to pull the paper without considering the position of your co authors. That is pretty selfish, and to be frank, quite juvenile.
Do note, that you are refusing to apologize to GEC for failing in your duties as an editor there.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Albatross"
My last post on this inanity by Roger, again cross posted:
ReplyDelete"Just two more parting comments Roger, time is valuable and best not spent arguing with you-- you seem to revel in attention, even if it is negative attention.
1) So, speaking of time, it is obvious that your time be much better spent reviewing papers for GEC rather than spending time on your blogs and trying to make mountains out of molehills.
2) In my experience in academia and in the work place, it is troubling how many times those people who make the biggest fuss when called out on their failing's, even when they do not have a leg to stand on, force others to capitulate just to get them to quieten down (most people hate confrontation). Ultimately, those folks making the noise a) accept no responsibility for their failing in the first place, b) try and lay the blame for their incompetence at the feet of others and c) more often than not there are no consequences for their poor behaviour.
Now some do this without knowing (no self awareness), but I have noticed that some use such tactics for their own benefit and instead of accepting responsibility for their actions (or non actions) try to lay the blame for their failings at the feet of others.
To me it is apparent that this is exactly what you are now doing.
Have a good weekend."
Pielke was described to me by an unusually perceptive correspondent as 'high maintenance'
ReplyDeleteUgh, one last attempt to reason with the man, but I get the feeling that anything that runs counter to his position is like water off a duck's back:
ReplyDelete"Roger,
1) I did not make anything up, I said you "feel that you are the "victim" here." You may not feel that way, but that is certainly how you are coming across to others following this tempest in a teapot that you manufactured.
2) "Also, I am unaware of five other board members saying "mea culpa" much less being notified of wrongdoing, are you?"
Good try at twisting my comment. My point is that they are not making the rounds on the internet making a fuss and making all sorts of accusations and having a tantrum. If they felt GEC was in the wrong they would have contacted GEC. Maybe they did, but what they did not do (to my knowledge) is have a tantrum in public and play at dog-whistle politics like you have done.
3) "Are my critique and the request to step down related? I can't say. It is interesting timing to be sure. Perhaps it is an odd coincidence. Perhaps not."
It is called dog whistling Roger, you know it and know exactly what game you are playing. Sadly, going by the comments at WUWT and some here it is working. So please do not be coy.
3) "I must say I am flattered by your concern about my need for soul-searching. Indeed the non-stop interest expressed by various folks on the internet about what I say or think continues to be a source of amazement."
No, it only goes to underscore your narcism.
4) It may have been a poor joke, but I have never suggested that you are a paranoid climate denier". Your behaviour here is clearly paranoid, as others have noted (ThingsBreak).
5) "I appreciate your concern about my various co-authors. But you are again left with an ink blot onto which you can map whatever views you'd like."
Well, you are the one who created that ink blot. It would have been very easy for you to clarify matters, but you have refused. Another poor attempt by you to evade the issue.
5) Your frequent reference to ink blots is rather bizarre. (H/T) to Hank Roberts:
"Which sort of "blot" is he [Roger] seeing there?
Damage to the journal's reputation?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blot
blot 1 (bl t). n. 1. A spot or a stain caused by a discoloring substance: a blot of paint. 2. A stain on one's character or reputation; a disgrace.
OR
Damage to his own reputation?
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_4_5.htm
"... the Rorschach interpretation is unreliable and invalid."
6) "..and note this -- they also apologized in unreserved terms. Seems like a fine outcome to me."
Indeed, a fine outcome for you! You have beautifully demonstrated the behaviour noted in the comment that I made above "....those people who make the biggest fuss when called out on their failing's, even when they do not have a leg to stand on, force others to capitulate just to get them to quieten down (most people hate confrontation)." "Most people" being Elsevier in this case...."
Having recognized the type early (from corporate experience), I've never paid much attention to him.
ReplyDeleteBut a quick question: was Elsevier's apology for removing him, or for delay in removing him?
Pielke was described to me by an unusually perceptive correspondent as 'high maintenance'
ReplyDeleteHe's a "trophy broker".
~@:>
One last time, the final cross post:
ReplyDelete"An addendum.
Roger should explicitly clarify and/or remove some of the statements he made in his blog post.
He has been informed that:
"None of the Editors read your blog post of 15th February on Brysse paper till yesterday (20th February). We were not aware of it and no-one had commented on it or mentioned it to us."
He has also been told that:
"The Editors reviewed the Board at our meeting in November 2012 and subsequently informed Elsevier of who to rotate off. "
Also, in an email to Neil Adger, Roger states:
"I will chalk this up to poor communication coupled with unfortunate timing."
Yet the following text remains unaltered/struck out in his original blog post:
"Are my critique and the request to step down related? I can't say. It is interesting timing to be sure. Perhaps it is an odd coincidence. Perhaps not."
As does this:
"However, if my critique of a GEC paper is in any way related to my removal from the editorial board, then the message being sent to those other scientists is pretty chilling."
So despite being informed that these speculations are groundless, and Roger admitting this was essentially a case of bad communication, Roger continues to promulgate misleading and false text (and run with his original heading) and says ["I stand by this post as written"]. That was written after Roger emailed Adger the quoted text.
If I were Elsevier I'd be rather annoyed that this text is still there, especially after they apologized (Roger never did post their apology? How curious). Maybe their lawyers ought to take a look.
Roger should look in a mirror and say "duplicitous" a few times.
PS: Roger says,
"Indeed the non-stop interest expressed by various folks on the internet about what I say or think continues to be a source of amazement.
That would particularly apply to Andy Revkin ;) But I think that Roger rather enjoys the uncritical attention Andy gives him. "
PS: Roger says,
ReplyDelete"Indeed the non-stop interest expressed by various folks on the internet about what I say or think continues to be a source of amazement
...and self-aggrandizement.
Horatio wrote "Omnipressience" a while ago, but some things are timeless:
"Omnipressience"
--by Horatio Algeranon
There once was a man from Boulder,
Whose press coverage had grown colder,
So he called a reporter,
"Turn on your recorder,"
"I'm a Climate Oracle", he told her.