AGW Omniclimate

A Political Rag, aka "Nature"

I have a climate-related peer-reviewed “comment” approved by both peers for publication on “Nature”. It didn’t see the light of the day because the Editors overruled the reviewers.

I also have a climate-related letter to the Editors approved by one Editor for publication on “Nature” (paper edition, not just website). It didn’t see the light of the day because a more senior Editor overruled the previous one.

I think that’s enough experience with dishonest editing at that political rag, a waste of space formerly known as a prestigious scientific journal.

0 replies on “A Political Rag, aka "Nature"”

Editors have the last word in matter of publication in their journals. They can overrule any comment and decision made by referees. Editors in chief can overrule the decision of any other editor of the same journal. The more the journal is prestigious the more is likely that good referee’s comment could not be enough to assure publication.

Said that, it is well known the presence of a sort of lobby (read maphia) at any level for publishing on top scientific journals. As Paul Latham wrote before, there are enormous interests (politic and economic) that influence the orientation of a journal towards specific scientific (or pseduoscientific) theories (better mere hypothesis). Climate change topic is not an exception, and it is not surprising the rejection of your articles, apart from the reasons that made it happens.

Anyway, I would be interested and grateful to you if you will post these articles (also in a different form from the original).

What is it about climate-related papers that show the hypotheses linked to global warming are incorrect that gets these editors so steamed up?

Just how and where are these so-called prestigious journals getting their funding from, is it Chris Huhne?

Leave a Reply to Deadman Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.