Ethan Allen at ATTP points to responses that James Hansen has written on the Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry Paper newly accepted, including a twenty page version for those bunnies who busy hiding the chocolate eggs tonight (and a fine and well deserved Easter morning to all :) and a comment on why really really really dangerous was a proper description of the path we are on and how the reticence of scientists is at least partially to blame.
Eli would like to take the opportunity to discuss open review, which, as a consequence of the Hansen paper, has come in for a bit of pinata play.
To Eli, the virtue of the EGU open review is the information it provides the casual reader. To move a bit away from Hansen, et al, remember “Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics”. by Makarieva et al. It was, IEHO, not even wrong, but Makarieva, who was then the random Russian of the week at a number of blogs on the dark streets of the internet, persevered. Oh my, did she. And the truth is that such behavior works, and today with journals breeding like, please forgive the Bunny, bunnies, it is easier than ever.
David Schultz has a good summary of that soap opera pointing to a much earlier quote from G. K. Batchelor
Papers of poor quality do more than waste printing and publishing resources; they mislead and confuse inexperienced readers, they waste and distract the attention of experienced scientists, and by their existence they lead future authors to be content with second-rate work.But, aha, if Eli can see the open review comments, the Bunny can be both warned and educated, even if the paper is not wild.
For good papers, the referees comments function as an extended abstract, outlining the contributions of the paper, the caveats of the referees and more.
Open review has much to recommend it.