tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post8772694038843345350..comments2024-03-18T03:27:18.777-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: The Letter Elsevier Should Have Sent Roger Jr.EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87102877807008806342013-03-04T06:23:13.958-05:002013-03-04T06:23:13.958-05:00All things come to those who wait.
In this case, ...All things come to those who wait.<br /><br />In this case, google has slowly updated its cache of the Editorial Board of Global Environmental Change. Consequently I can say definitively that as of <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&authuser=0&biw=1599&bih=795&sclient=psy-ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.journals.elsevier.com%2Fglobal-environmental-change%2Feditorial-board%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.journals.elsevier.com%2Fglobal-environmental-change%2Feditorial-board%2F&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.1580.6074.0.6796.9.8.1.0.0.0.269.1475.2-6.6.0.les%3B..0.2...1c.1.5.psy-ab.x1U9obYCOQQ&pbx=1" rel="nofollow">15:17 GMT, Feb 21st</a> (08:17 MST), the new board composition was a matter of public record. That is, at most half an hour after his <a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html?showComment=1361457807506#c2491118296278417358" rel="nofollow">Pielke's third update</a>, it was a matter of public record that Pielke:<br /><br />1) Falsely claimed to be dismissed mid term; and<br /><br />2) Falsely claimed that Elsevier in general, and GEC in particular did not have a policy of periodically rotating out editors in order to bring in new blood.<br /><br />Instead of retracting those allegations, Pielke strengthened them, twice alleging that Elsevier had lied when they informed him of the policy and asked him to step aside.These allegations occurred <a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html?showComment=1361546843445#c8592173219129730296" rel="nofollow">24 hours</a>, and <a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html?showComment=1361554863423#c4864143562416337337" rel="nofollow">26 hours</a> after it could without question be established as a matter of public record that they were telling the truth.<br /><br />Of course, it is not likely that the google cache of the page, which apparently updates every five to six days, should update just minutes after the page itself was updated. It is probable that the page was updated when the effected members of the editorial board were first advised that they were being asked to step down. That is, it was probably a matter of public record that his allegations were false before Pielke ever published them. But I cannot establish that as a matter of certainty. Tom Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12700645054629466342013-02-27T07:52:45.578-05:002013-02-27T07:52:45.578-05:00Marco,
The untruth is that our honest broker corr...Marco,<br /><br />The untruth is that our honest broker corrected Tom.<br /><br />Nothing in Tom's claim needed correction.<br /><br />In editing terms, he offered an addendum, not a corrigendum.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54389743541502167892013-02-27T04:19:32.123-05:002013-02-27T04:19:32.123-05:00Willard, in this case it's likely not an untru...Willard, in this case it's likely not an untruth. Considering the fact that a revision was made, there has likely been peer review.<br /><br />MarcoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69577909173143110852013-02-26T22:42:30.525-05:002013-02-26T22:42:30.525-05:00willard --- How many times do I have to tell you n...<b>willard</b> --- How many times do I have to tell you <i>not</i> to pet Schrodinger's cat. It messes up the entanglement...David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69984469244223986372013-02-26T14:16:44.556-05:002013-02-26T14:16:44.556-05:00Yet another peer-review inkblot:
> A small cor...Yet another peer-review inkblot:<br /><br />> A small correction ... that 2007 GEC of mine was a peer-reviewed paper: [...]<br /><br />I believe this is suppose to respond to this:<br /><br />> Far from opposing such critiques, GEC has actually published a critique by Pielke of the Stern review as an editorial in 2007.<br /><br />Let it be noted that our honest broker's article is indeed listed as an editorial:<br /><br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09593780/17<br /><br />An untruth? <br /><br />Perhaps. Perhaps not.<br /><br />You be the judge.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47695494100986858452013-02-26T14:10:59.450-05:002013-02-26T14:10:59.450-05:00Tom,
If you need access to the copies GEC before ...Tom,<br /><br />If you need access to the copies GEC before 2005, you can contact me via Eli or with the email on my tumblog.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62100058354513046572013-02-26T13:44:42.881-05:002013-02-26T13:44:42.881-05:00Alpha,
While TLITB might not have earned any resp...Alpha,<br /><br />While TLITB might not have earned any response, playing along might be useful for the diligence due to this episode of this Peer Review Survivor.<br /><br />Take for instance this claim by our honest broker:<br /><br />> I have never received a mid-term request to step down from any journal. <br /><br />Considering TLIBT's interpretations of Tom's comments, how should we interpret this claim?<br /><br />It could be interpreted as true: our honest broker <i>never</i> received such request.<br /><br />It could be interpreted as an untruth: our honest broker <i>just</i> received such request.<br /><br />Instead of solving this Schrodinger's cat of truth, perhaps we may write some attempts at humour, and make sure it should be taken as such by inserting appropriate emoticons for nearly every single sentences we write.<br /><br />***<br /><br />That we respond to TLITB or not does not matter much. That we respond to TLITB in a respectful manner does not matter either, contrary to his latest innuendo. Who would I be to tone troll anyone!<br /><br />What matters is that the topic does not become TLITB, nor Tom, nor me, nor anyone nor anything else than our honest broker's victim playing.<br /><br />Please let us play the ball.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83328331794826032892013-02-26T13:44:22.420-05:002013-02-26T13:44:22.420-05:00Hi Marco,
Thanks. In my line of research they us...Hi Marco,<br /><br />Thanks. In my line of research they usually provide a link to the PDF of the paper in question. <br /><br />So we'd have to first figure out what GEC does, otherwise it may be a moot question.Albatrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14444036939651524737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19991546857839403172013-02-26T12:52:58.825-05:002013-02-26T12:52:58.825-05:00Albatross, while I do not know how GEC functions, ...Albatross, while I do not know how GEC functions, I know of only one journal for which I review that provides the whole manuscript when inviting for review. The other journals only sent me an abstract, often, but not always, along with the name of the authors.<br /><br />MarcoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60995936051062109242013-02-26T12:45:35.422-05:002013-02-26T12:45:35.422-05:00I don't regard TLITB as more worthy of respons...I don't regard TLITB as more worthy of response than the Chinese knockoff handbag comments.Experiment Alphahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330174511331747736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56575548394444519252013-02-26T10:54:21.929-05:002013-02-26T10:54:21.929-05:00HiTom,
RE from waaay back up thread @23/2/13 7:1...HiTom, <br /><br />RE from waaay back up thread @23/2/13 7:17 PM. Thanks for your analysis. Intriguing stuff. <br /><br />Plenty of good and valid questions being raised here by Willard and others. Another question arises from this kerfuffle by Roger.<br /><br />One has to wonder whether or not GEC approached Pielke Junior to review Brysse et al per chance and he declined? If that did happen, then they would have sent Roger a copy of the manuscript to assist him in making his decision. Just wondering.Albatrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14444036939651524737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56252264877089283532013-02-26T08:52:01.722-05:002013-02-26T08:52:01.722-05:00Dear TLITB,
Please acknowledge the points I made ...Dear TLITB,<br /><br />Please acknowledge the points I made earlier.<br /><br />Also, please consider this:<br /><br />> It is interesting timing to be sure. Perhaps it is an odd coincidence. Perhaps not. <br /><br />Would this qualify as a Schrodinger's cat of truth?<br /><br />Many thanks!willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21180849132835744352013-02-26T06:50:20.837-05:002013-02-26T06:50:20.837-05:00Willard, we can at least show that "submittin...Willard, we can at least show that "submitting your own best work" is rather contentious. We know Roger has published in the last 5 years, but his last paper in GEC is from 2007 and was a criticism of the Stern report ("best work"?). It is of course possible GEC rejected all his best work...<br /><br />The other stuff will be more problematic to find out, but considering his apparent overinflation on the submission issue, one wonders how much truth there is in the rest.<br /><br />Note, it is fully possible Roger *thinks* he did all of this to the extent that can be expected of an Editorial Board member. For example, he may think proposing alternative reviewers when he declines to review is "helping to identify peer reviewers off the board". In that case I have been doing Editorial Board work without being on the Editorial Board for many journals. I have also on many occasions suggested journals for the work of my colleagues. Again without being part of these Editorial Boards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-682588282974667502013-02-26T02:43:41.551-05:002013-02-26T02:43:41.551-05:00Bernard J You really signed your name to that? Tha...Bernard J You really signed your name to that? Thanks for introducing me to a new word for tumour. Your use of this in both a pseudo-intellectual, and a pusillanimous way, is so familiar to me from the practice of climate hate ;) <br /><br />Even so, yours does seem a more honest example of the subsumed dehumanising hatred that may be an explanation for a lot of the febrile unhinged thinking here? ;)<br /><br />I’m not complaining keep it up! ;) <br /><br />Again Willard runs interference when pointing out to you some developments in communication since the pony express ;)<br /><br /><br /><br />Let’s see there’s Willard helping Bernard, Willard helping Tom with suggested alternatives, Willard pointing out to overzealous grammarians they have missed the way. <br /><br />Willard, when you said you were going to keep at bay from me a hoard of flaming rabbits did you really mean me that you are struggling to herd the floppy bunnies in the right direction? ;)<br /><br />Denis Healey and Geoffrey Howe come to mind ;)<br /><br /><br /><br />I like this new concept of "boiler plate" – the Schrodinger’s cat of truth I gather? The closest some here get I guess?<br /><br />Maybe it’s true maybe not – let’s imprint your favourite interpretation and not look too closely? ;)<br /><br /><br />Anonymous number 1, Danger Mouse (name check), Grammar expert. Tell me, is this passive from Tom Curtis?<br /><br />"It is possible that that assumption was mistaken."<br /><br />I guess you could say it refers to an assumption in the previous sentence that owned the assumption? <br />Shame the idea couldn't make to the same sentence though eh? ;)<br /><br />I need no help with the rest from Tom, it is certainly is his usual self-confusing knot tying.<br /><br /><br />You still have a problem with time inside your Gordian mess Tom. RPJ’s Update 2 was Feb 21 <br />What on earth do you mean by this? (my emphasis):<br /><br />"If the second [listing was changed on the 22nd], [Pielke's claim in his second update] is now demonstrably false from the public record, but was only <b>partially falsifiable</b> from the public record at the time he made the claim. "<br /><br /><br />TLITBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07639419243076322855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1197399113959106802013-02-26T00:55:39.550-05:002013-02-26T00:55:39.550-05:00Tom,
You're right that the editors have an ob...Tom,<br /><br />You're right that the editors have an obligation to thank our honest broker for the work he did for the journal. In that sense, the boilerplate sentence might very well show sincere gratitude, a gratitude our honest broker depreciates by throwing a tantrum, if I may borrow your expression (with my emphasis):<br /><br />> The complete lack of communication -- especially in the preceding 12 months when changes to the Board were determined but not shared -- <b>invites speculation when decisions are announced but not explained. This is especially the case when a gracious form letter notifying me of being dropped is followed up with a post-hoc litany of concerns from the editor.</b> Had I not noted publicly the odd timing of my being dropped fro the Board, I suspect that I never would have known the reasons behind your decisions that only now you see fit to share.<br /><br />(The first sentence contains an untruth, by the way: the changes were determined in november 2012.)<br /><br />I'm not sure why the reasons Adger evoked should be interpreted as a litany. Why would they wish more performance from our honest broker? He's not an employee. He gives what he can. <br /><br />Since 2010, our honest broker refused two reviews for the journal. That we know. Why does our honest broker would sound that surprised to be asked to step down? Why does he diminishes his own responsibility in maintaining the communications open? <br /><br />As if the one who says "no" had no responsibility to propose counter-offers. As if being an editor was some kind of sinecure. As if his replacement should be justified by some grudge. <br /><br />Our honest broker is sure making sure that there is some, now.<br /><br />***<br /><br />In any case, is it true that our honest broker did nothing for the journal since 2010? He does seem to open up that possibility when he says:<br /><br />> Of course being an editorial board member involves more than reviewing, it also carries an expectation of recruiting high quality authors, submitting your own best work, helping to identify peer reviewers off the board, all of which I have actively done (your suggestion that performing reviews is the basis for board performance reflects a lack of understanding of academia).<br /><br />Do we have public accessible records showing that our honest broker did any of this for the journal?<br /><br />Do we have public accessible records showing that our honest broker did any of this for the journal since the end of 2010?<br /><br />***<br /><br />If this bland story can generate so many interesting lines of inquiry, what a ball climate auditors have.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86628104402227173182013-02-25T23:42:33.208-05:002013-02-25T23:42:33.208-05:00Willard, I will quote my words from a recent comme...Willard, I will quote my words from a recent comment on Pielke's blog:<br /><br />"More substantively, it is perfectly consistent to be both thankful for the voluntary contribution of a person, while believing that that persons contribution is well below that by other equivalent volunteers. This is not a situation where Pielke is being paid. Ergo, below par performance is no skin of Elsevier's nose. It does, however, constitute a significant reason to ask Pielke to step down, given that policy mandated that they ask some editorial board members to step down.<br /><br />On this point I disagree with Albatross. It is not clear at all that Pielke did a lousy job. In his first four years on the board (2007-2010) he was only slightly below average in reviews undertaken, and he contributed an editorial. Elsevier had every reason to appreciate that work; and every right (indeed, an obligation) to say so. It is just that after 2010 he went missing in action. And given that, and a policy requiring that a "... journal’s Board generally undergoes a complete revision every two or three years, and this will involve removing some individuals, inviting others, and renewing some existing members for another term", its a no brainer to remove an individual who has contributed nothing over the last two years.<br /><br />So, Elsevier had a policy of periodically refreshing editorial board membership; Pielke was asked to step down as part of that policy; he (rather than some other of the editors) was among the five asked to step down because of his low (effectively zero) contribution after 2010; but his low contribution after 2010 in no way diminished Elsevier's appreciation of his real contribution from March 2006-Dec 2010. There is no contradiction in this, and no reason to suspect any falsehood in the communications by Elsevier and the GEC editors with Pielke."<br /><br />I do agree that it is quite possible that the expression of appreciation was mere boilerplate. If boilerplate, it does not follow that they are true or false, merely that their truth, or falsity had no causative role in their utterance. However, it is also possible that they expressions of appreciation were made because Elsevier, or the editors did in fact appreciate Pielke's contributions. The most I can say about (2) is that I don't know that it was false; and that if we adopt any sort of principle of charity we must assume it to be true. Pielke is in no position to say anything more than that either.Tom Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6855323930000209652013-02-25T22:38:56.175-05:002013-02-25T22:38:56.175-05:00Tom,
Thank you for your analysis.
I believe it h...Tom,<br /><br />Thank you for your analysis.<br /><br />I believe it helps illuminate this <a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html?showComment=1361462464324" rel="nofollow">comment</a> by our honest broker:<br /><br />> Lest there be any confusion, below is the text of the original email I received from GEC dropping me from the GEC Board. It contains several untruths: (1) about the notion of "rotate members at regular intervals" and (2) an expression of "appreciation" for my work. <b>Upon receiving the letter, I knew that (1) was false, as I have shown.</b> (I have since learned the falseness of (2)). <br /><br />I believe your analysis shows that the sentence emphasized was an untruth.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Here's what our honest broker concludes about untruths:<br /><br />> If you tell people untruths you should expect that they will wonder about the truth.<br /><br />I believe that this conclusion has merit, although I doubt we should extend it to (2), which looks like polite sentence taken from a boilerplate. This seems to have the power to make the world of diplomacy collapse. Politeness matters more than honest brokers might believe:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory<br /><br /><br />willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54158703467052103012013-02-25T22:20:42.427-05:002013-02-25T22:20:42.427-05:00Bernard,
As a non-robot, I assume you'd like ...Bernard,<br /><br />As a non-robot, I assume you'd like to be recalled of this <a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html?showComment=1361457963012" rel="nofollow">response</a> from our honest broker to Adger:<br /><br />> Your speculation that I have "waning interest" in the journal could have been easily discussed via email or phone. <br /><br />I believe this suggestion has merit. Our honest broker might apply this should apply to himself. <br /><br />Another suggestion could be for the editors to directly post the news on their webpage, a practice honest brokers would not<a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html?showComment=1361578543762" rel="nofollow">dispute</a>":<br /><br />> And people wonder why I air issues in public?<br /><br />***<br /><br />Let us also note that our honest broker does not seem to have access to what has been discussed in the last two meetings:<br /><br />> I find it remarkable that you have known for 3 months, <i>and perhaps as long as one year,</i> that you were going to remove me from the editorial board and not once in that period did you see fit to contact me to either discuss or let me know. <br /><br />With our emphasis.<br /><br />Has our honest broker inquired about the minutes of these two last meetings? <br /><br />In fact, is it public knowledge which meetings our honest broker have attended?<br /><br />Could this be another peer-review inkblot?<br /><br />You be the judge.<br /><br />PS: Capcha is blineder.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49895729924109262172013-02-25T20:52:35.247-05:002013-02-25T20:52:35.247-05:00I said at 24/2/13 4:41 PM:
"Pielke was a not...I said at <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-letter-elsevier-should-have-sent.html?showComment=1361752916915#c3194337160314591530" rel="nofollow">24/2/13 4:41 PM</a>:<br /><br />"<i>Pielke was a notable under-performer in his role on the editorial board. The journal doesn't do honorary positions, and it doesn't do passengers, so when it's time for a bit of revitalisation why not cut out the dead wood?<br /><br />Other, and likely more worthy, editors were also let go for rejuvenation, so Roger should just get over himself.<br /><br />This is a tantrum more suited to a three year old></i>"<br /><br />to which TLITB replied by quoting from a letter from Elsevier:<br /><br />"<i>As we described in the previous email, the only reason for seeking new Board Members is to refresh the Board with new members. We conveyed this to our meeting of Board members during the fringes of Planet under Pressure conference in March 2012, which you were not able to attend.</i>"<br /><br />and then whining:<br /><br /><i>You see the *only* reason there? And you see when they decided it (nearly a year ago) if anyone can show they told him in good time "inbetween" since then that would be really fascinating for me. If you can show they really thought him less "worthy" than the other 5 too that would be good.</i><br /><br />It seems that logical thinking is not TLITB's fort.<br /><br />The journal's decision to "refresh" the editorial board does not preclude the situation that some of that refreshment was desirable as a consequence of the significant under-performance of one or more of its members. The two are not mutually exclusive, and indeed refreshment is usually an action predicated on other reasons.<br /><br />And given Pielke's absence from duty one can hardly expect the journal to chase around trying to find their AWOL editor. They are not his nursemaids.<br /><br />Face it. The guy was canned because he wasn't pulling his weight - unless your definition of such includes lurking in the dark with hands in pockets. <br /><br />He was the Editor Who Didn't. A tick. An acrochordon. A remora. The journal has a job to do, and Pielke wasn't doing it to anything resembling a minimum standard.<br /><br />As to Pielke being "less worthy" that the others, I only said that this was "likely". Given Pielke's complete inaction for the last 2 and a half years, and the poor action preceding that period, it would be difficult for other editors to be even less active. And the other editors may have had different reasons for not being able to continue with they editorial tasks, so they get the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />If Pielke has a serious justification for expecting retention on the board, I'd like to hear of it.<br /><br />Oh, and TLITB, you need to improve your comprehension skills somewhat - I am <b>not</b> anonymous. I am, as I signed in my previous post...<br /><br /><br />Bernard J.<br /><br /><br />[I think, therefore I am not a robot.<br /><br />QED]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36130293286298476552013-02-25T20:19:32.187-05:002013-02-25T20:19:32.187-05:00TLITB has finally deigned to state in clear langua...TLITB has finally deigned to state in clear language the issue that vexes him. Given that, I am able to respond that, yes, I had until he stated the issue, assumed that the current listing of the editorial board membership as available on the 22nd was also available two days earlier, ie, when Pielke wrote his second update. It is possible that that assumption was mistaken. Certainly on the 15th, the list had not been updated as shown on the currently available <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&authuser=0&biw=1599&bih=760&sclient=psy-ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.journals.elsevier.com%2Fglobal-environmental-change%2Feditorial-board%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.journals.elsevier.com%2Fglobal-environmental-change%2Feditorial-board%2F&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.2211.5949.0.6609.7.7.0.0.0.0.487.1580.2-3j1j1.5.0.les%3B..0.2...1c.1.4.psy-ab.Z4jytsBK6go&pbx=1" rel="nofollow">Google Cache</a>. That it had changed by the 22nd is know by the fact that I consulted it then. Further, it was available on the 22nd in the <a href="http://www.elsevier.com/journals/global-environmental-change/0959-3780?generatepdf=true" rel="nofollow">author information pack</a> of that date. Unfortunately I still do not know whether the listing was changed on the 20th, ie, when the emails where sent to the people asked to step down, or on the 22nd (when the author information pack was changed). If the former, Pielke's claim in his second update was contradicted by publicly available evidence at the time he wrote. If the second, it is now demonstrably false from the public record, but was only partially faslifiable from the public record at the time he made the claim. In the later case, the best that can be said in Pielke's favour is that he drew a conclusion from an absence of evidence which was in fact false.<br /><br />He did not draw just one conclusion from Adger's declining to comment on who else had been asked to step aside. He also concluded that this was "another climate ink blot", which only makes sense as a suggestion that he was asked to step down because of his critique of Brysse et al. Yet, as a matter of public record, Pielke had only served two terms on the board, and was not dismissed mid term. Further, as a matter of public record, all Elsevier publications have a <a href="http://www.elsevier.com/editors/home#editorial-boards" rel="nofollow">policy</a> of the "... journal’s Board generally undergo[ing] a complete revision every two or three years, and this will involve removing some individuals, inviting others, and renewing some existing members for another term." (<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20130115194730/http://www.elsevier.com/editors/home" rel="nofollow">Wayback, Jan 15</a>) So, as a matter of public record, the key elements of the email to him from Elsevier were accurate, with the possible exception that they did not appreciate the work done, although I suspect that also was true.<br /><br />So, at the time that Pielke wrote the blog, he had no reason for his suspicions. He had a reason for making them public before taking any effort to allay those suspicions however. A lie, as they say, goes around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants. Pielke knows that he can get is message out, and never be forced to admit he was wrong on the primary claim, even as each point of evidence he offers for that claim is demolished. Tom Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34541033222707272302013-02-25T19:26:24.631-05:002013-02-25T19:26:24.631-05:00Willard, GEC publishes a list of reviewers for the...Willard, GEC publishes a list of reviewers for the previous year in the first issue of the journal each year. Unfortunately, all such lists are pay walled, except for 2007 (listing reviewers for 2006, Pielke among them) and 2013 (from which we learn that Pielke was not a reviewer in 2012).<br /><br />For what it is worth, none of the board members asked to step aside were reviewers in 2012. Most, but not all of the board members who where not asked to step aside were reviewers in 2012.Tom Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43719993993103114072013-02-25T15:36:05.374-05:002013-02-25T15:36:05.374-05:00Tom Curtis,
Perhaps we could reword this sentence...Tom Curtis,<br /><br />Perhaps we could reword this sentence:<br /><br />> Pielke's various claims are contradicted by the public record, and were contradicted by that record before Pielke put libelous pen to paper.<br /><br />in such a way that we don't have to hypothesize the existence of a claim before someone commits to it. Taking what TLBTI said so far, we could try this:<br /><br />> Pielke's <i>assumed facts</i> are contradicted by the public record, and were contradicted by that record before Pielke <i>committed to them</i>.<br /><br />(This works if we assume that facts are independent from the propositions that express them. This assumption almost defines realism. But let's not digress.)<br /><br />Perhaps TLBTI could even agree with that one.<br /><br />Perhaps it was just a vocabulary thing, after all.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42663161265384336752013-02-25T15:25:35.581-05:002013-02-25T15:25:35.581-05:00Do we have any publicly available or accessible ev...Do we have any publicly available or accessible evidence that our honest broker asked around before posting <b>Interesting Timing to be Removed from GEC Editorial Board</b>?<br /><br />The answer seems to be yes:<br /><br />> I did reply by accepting their request and asking the following two questions which might help to clarify the terms of my release: [...] If I get a reply I will update this post.<br /><br />The same piece of evidence helps us answer this other question:<br /><br />Did our honest broker wait for a response before posting <b>Interesting Timing to be Removed from GEC Editorial Board</b>?<br /><br />The answer seems to be no.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90365604999892177222013-02-25T14:57:21.154-05:002013-02-25T14:57:21.154-05:00Do we have any publicly available or accessible ev...Do we have any publicly available or accessible evidence that our honest broker shared his critique of Brysse et al. 2013 with its authors before publishing it on his blog?willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87416644707471733802013-02-25T14:43:37.244-05:002013-02-25T14:43:37.244-05:00Do we have any publicly available or accessible ev...Do we have any publicly available or accessible evidence of any kind of work by our honest broker between March 2005 and January 2006 for that journal?willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.com