Trying To Disperse The Impermeable Fog #2: Editors Who Entertain Together With Are Non Answerable

In my last post, I gave a fresh illustration how the confidential peer review maintains the publication of dubious scientific results. Naturally I confronted the authors of the newspaper as well as editors of the journal. With revealing results.

In 2012 nosotros wrote a newspaper where nosotros showed that the accessible climate tolerance information used for hundreds of Coexistence Approach studies were highly erroneous. In the same year, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology published a newspaper past times Hoorn et al. (2012), where the next is stated inwards the Material & Methods

"Though existence useful to unfold erroneous entries regarding climatic ranges of extant flora taxa cited inwards the Palaeoflora information base of operations (Utescher as well as Mosbrugger, 2012) [a dead link, purely virtual reference], the written report is non qualified to assess reliability as well as potential of the CoA for the argue of diverse methodological flaws. These include the partly really depression number of taxa contributing amongst climate information inwards the analysis [same number than used inwards CA studies] ..., the job of unspecific climate information (e.g. climate information for flora families when the to a greater extent than specific information for a lower taxonomic degree were non contained inwards the information base) [a measure physical care for inwards CA literature] to reconstruct really specific climate weather (e.g. the climate of the Alpine zone inwards Georgia) [which occur to host many Tertiary relict genera, CA studies relied on for their estimates], as well as extensions of the climatic ranges derived from extreme stands inwards high altitudinal areas hence introducing an additional bias (insufficiently known lapse rates [we tested for this, actually], microclimate, snowfall depth inwards the mutual coldness season, etc.) [issues that Utescher handles past times "...careful choice of 4–6 climate stations", as well as only he knows which 4–6 stations he used]. The Palaeoflora database is checked as well as updated inwards regular intervals (Utescher as well as Mosbrugger, 2012) [data cause got been as well as are largely inaccessible as well as undocumented] and novel tests of the CoA on additional modern floras from diverse continental areas that follow the published measure of the physical care for (Mosbrugger as well as Utescher, 1997) [using iv modern validation floras, for one, atmospheric precipitation estimates didn't gibe the station data, a thing that should live impossible when you lot cause got right tolerance data, as well as 2 of the iv where 100 km apart inwards growing nether precisely the same climate] are on the means [a expert one, they nonetheless are "on the way" 6 years afterwards ... ground roads, convey me home,  ... ] in social club to furnish farther bear witness for the reliability of the method." The really final has been done, nosotros invalidated it inwards 2016, the application (Grimm et al. 2016) as well as the theory behind it (Grimm & Potts 2016).

I protested this dorsum as well as then (October 2012), as well as wrote a post to the authors as well as caput editors of PPP. The editors didn't react, as well as the commencement author, Carina Hoorn (a well-merited palynologist) simply told me this:

"Dear Sir," — whenever you lot criticise mortal inwards science, it becomes formal ... as well as it was non "Dear Dr Grimm" to present me that I was a nobody, of course

"The reference to your newspaper inwards our CA department was made on recommendation of i of our reviewers." — Not us.

"I was non aware that the text resembled about other text as well as I apologize if maybe it is every bit good unsmooth a statement." — Oh, nice, thanks. No it's non crude, it's simply alone incorrect (see [...] above).

"The CA department was produced past times my co-author Torsten Utescher." — Meaning, I'm the commencement author, but I'm non responsible for that crap.

"I hold back he may desire to fence this affair farther amongst you." — No. He doesn't. Deep within he mightiness know that he's riding a dead Equus caballus for directly twenty years. Thank you, peer review confidentiality to brand that possible.

"In my persuasion this fence seems to comprise a larger number that extends beyond our paper;and for this argue maybe you lot tin both create upward one's heed on a suitable forum to display this discussion?" — Yes. And The Donald has an IQ of 156, as well as simply yesterday I discussed amongst Santa Claus as well as the Easter Bunny how to convey downward Valentin as well as his day.

In instance you're interested inwards what I wrote inwards my e-mails regarding the unfounded statements past times Utescher on our 2012 paper; as well as why the application of the Coexistence Approach inwards Hoorn et al. fifty-fifty violated their ain guidelines as well as non-logic; here's the total storey (no conclusion).

Six years, as well as 2 devastating (for the Coexistence Approach) papers later

Regarding myfirst "entertained" me to essay out a Comment. In his minute mail, he was so dainty to betoken out that I'm "sadly misinformed" that the editors of the mag are "answerable" to me as well as my request, as well as that I should delight non involve them inwards farther correspondence amongst the authors on the issue.

I naturally apologised to Algeo for my misconception that editors are at that spot to ensure basic scientific standards of peer-reviewed journals, such as: documenting critical data.

And whenever I'm misinformed (or non informed at all), I make what everyone does: inquire the World Wide Web.

So, I duckducked what is the undertaking of an editor of a scientific journal.

And institute this, a white newspaper issued past times the Council of Science Editors.

Among many other reasonable things, i recommendation is:

"Establishing clear guidelines for authors regarding acceptable practices for sharing experimental materials as well as information, particularly those required to replicate the research, earlier as well as after publication."

It's non only me who is sadly misinformed (couldn't aid to post this to all editors of PPP I could easily find, maybe about of them discovery this a expert guideline for the future).

The reply must live no.

In this detail instance it is really simple.

When you lot lay out results based on a mutual climate hit method, you lot cause got to document the climate ranges.

Basics. An obvious thing to make or inquire for (editor, reviewer, or author). And it is the editor's undertaking (who else?) to brand this clear to unwilling authors, especially when existence pointed to this deficit past times i of the reviewers (as it was the instance for Worobiec & Gedl 2018).

In general, the scientific earth could live such a dainty place, if nosotros all would at to the lowest degree concord on something so pretty obvious:

Data that were used to create published results, should live accessible to 3rd parties.

It is inwards our ain involvement (see also this post past times D. Morrison regarding why nosotros desire to lay out our phylogentic data). We all brand errors, as well as nosotros all may eventually job erroneous data. There is no shame close it. The character of scientific discipline depends on 2 things to a higher identify all:

1. That such errors tin live identified.
2. That erroneous information are eliminated.

Ideally, basic information are published, something fifty-fifty PPP encourages to make (another information I passed on to Algeo as well as the PPP editors). But at least, when mortal asks for it, fifty-fifty if it is to proof you lot wrong, you lot should live able to deliver. Or don't present the results at commencement place.

And every bit editor of a proper scientific mag you lot should – for the sake of expert scientific practise as well as opened upward scientific discourse – non lay your caput inwards the sand, dearest Prof. Dr Algeo, when a syndicate blocks downward such a request, for no other argue than to piece of work along their persistent science-fraud nether the carpet. You should brand certain that mal-practise comes to an end, when mortal lay a lot of endeavour inwards its revelation. Science needs to serve higher standards than economic science as well as politics.

You tin bring together (start) the give-and-take also at PeerJ Discussions (Q&A).

Question: Should nosotros live forced to document primary information integral to our results?

https://peerj.com/questions/3396-should-we-be-forced-to-document-primary-data/

References (see also the preceeding post)
Grimm GW, Bouchal JM, Denk T, Potts AJ. 2016. Fables as well as foibles: a critical analysis of the Palaeoflora database as well as the Coexistence Approach for palaeoclimate reconstruction. Review of Palaeobotany as well as Palynology 233:216–235.
Grimm GW, Potts AJ. 2016. Fallacies as well as fantasies: the theoretical underpinnings of the Coexistence Approach for palaeoclimate reconstruction. Climates of the Past 12:611–622. http://www.rachelteodoro.com/search?q=business-as-usual-ppp-keeps-on
Hoorn C, Straathof J, Abels HA, Xu Y, Utescher T, Dupont-Nivet G. 2012. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 belatedly Eocene palynological tape of climate modify as well as Tibetan Plateau uplift (Xining Basin, China). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 344–345:16–38.
Worobiec E, Ged P. 2018 [online Dec 2017]. Upper Eocene palynoflora from Łukowa (SE Poland) as well as its palaeoenvironmental context. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology DOI:10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.12.019.