I am not a climate scientist, I am soil scientist/geostatistician. The interesting thing here for me is that the journal now says "Readers are alerted that the conclusions reported in this manuscript are currently under dispute". In my own field we have had some heated discussions and controversial papers, including about the potential f…
I am not a climate scientist, I am soil scientist/geostatistician. The interesting thing here for me is that the journal now says "Readers are alerted that the conclusions reported in this manuscript are currently under dispute". In my own field we have had some heated discussions and controversial papers, including about the potential for long-term C storage in soils. But we have never had one of "our" journals put this "disclaimer" on any paper. What we've had are (1) Discussion papers, where the journal editor knows the paper is controversial and invites comments and replies on publication, (2) "reply" papers that re-analyze or re-interpret the work of the original paper. So we as a community see the entire debate among reputable scientists (nota bene, all papers have been peer-reviewed) and we then synthesize for ourselves. I could certainly slap the "under dispute" label on many papers in my field! Note this is quite different from "the data are suspected to be fraudulent" or "the analysis is suspected to have been incorrect".
I am not a climate scientist, I am soil scientist/geostatistician. The interesting thing here for me is that the journal now says "Readers are alerted that the conclusions reported in this manuscript are currently under dispute". In my own field we have had some heated discussions and controversial papers, including about the potential for long-term C storage in soils. But we have never had one of "our" journals put this "disclaimer" on any paper. What we've had are (1) Discussion papers, where the journal editor knows the paper is controversial and invites comments and replies on publication, (2) "reply" papers that re-analyze or re-interpret the work of the original paper. So we as a community see the entire debate among reputable scientists (nota bene, all papers have been peer-reviewed) and we then synthesize for ourselves. I could certainly slap the "under dispute" label on many papers in my field! Note this is quite different from "the data are suspected to be fraudulent" or "the analysis is suspected to have been incorrect".