http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/

Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus' attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.

Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled "Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts". Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).

Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.

In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.

Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.

Interested scientists can reach the online library at: www.pattern-recogn-phys.net

Martin Rasmussen
January 2014

"In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis"

It reads to me as if the publishers felt that their statement sounded a bit weak, so they grubbed around for something to sex it up a bit - but that's all that they could come up with.

This accusation is not mentioned in the letter to the editors as posted by Tallbloke. If the letter published by Tallbloke is the complete letter, then it is clearly an item added as a grubby afterthought, without apparently having first been discussed with the editors.

Making an allegation without no evidence to be seen, and which is inherently incapable of being refuted (because of the anonymity of referees) makes me feel that those making the allegation put themselves in a poor light.

Patagon - I agree with that.

Anthony Watts, on WUWT, seems to be whipping himself and some commenters into a frenzy of indignation. In his earlier posting, he made clear his hostility to the nature of the work but his emphasis now is on the issue of 'pal review'.

Tallbloke himself responded:

"There’s a big difference between ‘pal review’ which aims to get a sub-standard paper under the wire of the IPCC deadline, ‘pal reviewers’ who aim to keep sceptical papers out of mainstream journals, and ‘pal review’ which aims to improve a colleagues paper and honestly criticises it to do that"

I posted a comment of my own:

I don’t get a lot of this stuff about peer-review – especially I don’t get the idea that it provides some sort of acid test of the conclusions of a paper.

It has always seemed to me that climate science’s trumpeting that work has been ‘peer reviewed’, with the implication that it was therefore not open to dispute, was ridiculous. Indeed the term ‘peer-reviewed’ seems to have come into use via climate science. I imagine it was originally intended to exclude, for example, popular magazine articles from the IPCC’s consideration.

Over the years I have published a good number of papers (in refereed engineering journals – nothing to do with climate) and I have myself reviewed many papers. My understanding has always been that the role of the reviewer is to uphold the standards of the journal. A reviewer should certify:

- That the work appears to be original. This requires that the reviewer is familiar with the literature of the field.

- That it is in an area of interest to readers of the journal.

- That it is nontrivial and it represents a significant advance.

- That is makes adequate reference to prior work in the area.

- That its presentation is satisfactory (use of language and terminology, explanation of symbols, follows in logical sequence and so on).

- That the work makes sense, there are no obvious errors and so on.

Some issues (eg lack of originality or triviality) result in a recommendation that the paper should be rejected. Other issues (problems of language, inadequate details of experimental equipment, or inadequate reference to relevant prior work) result in recommendations for the paper to be revised and resubmitted.

Although a reviewer should check mathematical derivations and apply ‘sanity checks’ to results, I have never considered it part of a reviewer’s role to verify the work.