cc: "p.jones" , mann@virginia.edu date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:35:04 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Fwd: Problesm with the review process at Climate Research to: f034 , Clare Goodess , Mike Hulme From: harvey@cirque.geog.utoronto.ca To: mann@virginia.edu, trenberth@ucar.ncar.edu, wigley@ucar.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, jto@u.arizona.edu, simon.shackley@umist.ac.uk, Robert wilby , tim.carter@vyh.fi, p.martens@icis.unimaas.nl, peter.whetton@dar.csiro.au, c.goodess@uea, Mike Hulme , p.jones@uea, PITTOCK Barrie , a.minns@uea.ac.uk, Wolfgang Cramer , j.salinger@niwa.co.nz, simon.torok@csiro.au, harvey@geog.utoronto.ca Illegal-Object: Syntax error in To: address found on bureau6.utcc.utoronto.ca: To: N.W.Arnell ^-missing end of address Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:12:19 -0400 Subject: Problesm with the review process at Climate Research Reply-to: harvey@cirque.geog.utoronto.ca Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by multiproxy.evsc.Virginia.EDU id h3MHF3105779 Dear All: Tom Wigley forwarded to me recent correspondance over concerns about another bad paper that was published in Climate Research (by Baliunus), and suggested that I forward a copy of an email that we (after some procrastination) have just sent to de Freitas (see below). I might add that we were both independently informed that the reviewer's "were split". Since both Tom and I were strongly against publishing the paper, that implies that there were four reviewers, which of course is highly unusual. We have chosen not to raise questions about that at this time. Regards Danny Harvey Dear Dr. de Freitas: We have discovered that we were both reviewers of the paper Revised 21st century temperature projections by Michaels et al. recently published in your journal (vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). In our reviews, we both judged the paper to be in category d (Publication not recommended) because of numerous flaws in the arguments, which we carefully documented. We now see that the paper has been published almost without alteration from the original submission, except for a few added paragraphs that either do not address or inadequately address the main objections that we raised. The revised manuscript was apparently not subjected to re- review at least not by us. We find this to be most unusual even if the authors presented a counter-argument to each of our objections, it is the normal procedure among reputable journals for the authors reply to be forwarded to the original reviewers for further comment. We note in this regard that even under the less damning evaluation category c (Revise and re-submit for additional review), responses and revisions should be sent back to the original referees. Your decision that a paper judged totally unacceptable for publication should not require re- review is unprecedented in our experience. We therefore request that you forward to us copies of the authors responses to our criticisms, together with: (1) your reason for not sending these responses or the revised manuscript to us; (2) an explanation for your judgment that the revised paper should be published in the absence of our re-review; and (3) your reason for failing to follow accepted editorial procedures. Yours truly, Danny Harvey and Tom Wigley ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml