{"id":365888,"date":"2025-02-12T10:57:48","date_gmt":"2025-02-12T09:57:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=365888"},"modified":"2025-02-12T10:57:49","modified_gmt":"2025-02-12T09:57:49","slug":"the-vibe-comes-for-academic-publishing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=365888","title":{"rendered":"The Vibe comes for Academic Publishing"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Many old books combined by a heap. Russian saying ‘Knowledge – light, ignorance – darkness’<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opinion by Kip Hansen<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a long list of things that have been singled out as needing fixing in our current system of academic scientific publishing.   Among these are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Publication bias<\/strong>:   The tendency to only publish positive results, leading to an incomplete picture of research findings and potentially misleading conclusions. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Editorial Bias<\/strong>:\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>In many journals, even those held in highest esteem, Editors determine what will be published, and this has led to what many see as huge biases in favor of some scientific viewpoints and against others.\u00a0 In some fields, papers that do not support the generalized consensus in a field of study simply stand no chance of publication.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paywalls:  <\/strong>Many scientific articles are behind paywalls, limiting access to research for scientists in developing countries and the general public. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opaque peer review:  <\/strong>The peer-review process, where experts evaluate research before publication, can be opaque and subject to biases, with reviewers sometimes not fully disclosing their identities or conflicts of interest.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Profit-driven publishing:   <\/strong>For-profit publishers can prioritize profits over the dissemination of knowledge, leading to high subscription costs and limited access. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lack of reproducibility:   <\/strong>Difficulty in replicating published research findings, which can undermine the credibility of scientific results. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There have been repeated calls for a new paradigm in which scientific publishing is truly open, transparent, accessible, and sustainable.  Some of these efforts include: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Brian Nosek the co-Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science (http:\/\/cos.io\/<\/a>) that operates the Open Science Framework (http:\/\/osf.io\/<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.  John P.A. Ioannidis<\/a>  \u2014 a proponent of Evidence Based Medicine and author of the famous \u201cWhy Most Published Research Findings Are False<\/a>\u201d which found \u201cclaimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias<\/em>.\u201d  Ioannidis had strong views about the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, and has published 81 papers<\/a> (link is a download .doc) on the subject as author or co-author.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.  Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky:   (the co-founders of Retraction Watch<\/a><\/em>) opined last year in the Washington Post: \u201cAn epidemic of scientific fakery threatens to overwhelm publishers<\/a>\u201d lamenting the rising tide of poor and often fake scientific papers published in junk and predatory journals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And there are many, many more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, in the field of Public Health<\/a>, a new journal has been created.  The reaction?  The online magazine WIRED just published:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Donald Trump\u2019s NIH Pick Just Launched a Controversial Scientific Journal<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

authored by Emily Mullin and Matt Reynolds, it is both a political attack and an attack from selected scientists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is the new journal?\u00a0 It is the Journal of the Academy of Public Health. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Academy itself<\/a>\u00a0is new, and its internet Home Page states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/em>The Academy of Public Health<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Academy of Public Health is an international association of public health scholars, researchers and practicing professionals in the field of public health and its many specialties. Members are united in their commitment to open discourse, intellectual rigor and broad, equitable access to scientific discovery.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The goal of the Academy is to promote open and transparent scientific discourse on science and public health. The vehicle for doing so shall be through its associated journal, the open access and open peer-reviewed Journal of the Academy of Public Health<\/a>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And who is responsible?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Founding Board members are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sander Greenland \u2013 Academy Member  [ see here<\/a> and here<\/a> ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

George F Tidmarsh \u2013 Academy Member  [ see here<\/a> and here<\/a> ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

David DesRosiers \u2013 Independent Board member [ President of the RealClear Foundation<\/a> ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Journal\u2019s Editorial Board<\/a> is made up of: (long list, with links)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Martin Kulldorff, PhD<\/a>,<\/em><\/strong> Founding Editor-in-Chief<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Andrew Noymer, MSc, PhD<\/a>,<\/em><\/strong> Editor-in-Chief<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carl Heneghan, BM, DPhil<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Christine Stabell Benn, MD, PhD, DMSc<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

David Livermore, PhD<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

G\u00fcnter Kampf, MD<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Helen Colhoun, DMed, MPH<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jayanta Bhattacharya, MD, PhD<\/a>,<\/em><\/strong> (on leave \u2014 Donald Trump named Bhattacharya as his choice to lead the National Institutes of Health<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jim Buttery, MD<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

John Ioannidis, MD, DSc<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maged Kamel Boulos, MD, PhD<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marty Makary, MD, MPH<\/a>,<\/em><\/strong> (on leave)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mohammad Ali Mansournia, MD, MPH, PhD<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peter G\u00f8tzsche, MD, DMSc, MSc  <\/a> <\/strong>[<\/em>co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ruth Gil Prieto, PhD<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sander Greenland, DrPH<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scott Atlas, MD<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sergio Recuenco, MD, MPH, DrPH<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simon Wood, PhD<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sunetra Gupta, PhD<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tom Jefferson, MD, MSc<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One would hard pressed to find a group of people with more expertise and prestige in the world of Public Health.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what is the objection to the new Journal of the Academy of Public Health?    Mostly Politics<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. Two-Party Politics:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marty Makary is on leave from the Editorial Board of the Journal because he has been tapped by President Trump to head the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Jayanta Bhattacharyais also on leave from the Editorial Board, having been tapped by President Trump to head The National Institutes of Health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The RealClear Foundation<\/a>  publishes the Journal of the Academy of Public Heath as nonprofit journal subsidiary.   RealClear is labelled in the Wired piece as a \u201cright-wing news site\u201d \u2013 meaning mostly that it is not a left-leaning media outlet. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Public Health Politics:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Worse yet, many of the board members were signers of the Great Barrington Declaration<\/a>, which recommended against many of the governmental policies and mandates meant to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And besides politics?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/strong>Some experts are worried that the journal, which has links to the right-wing news site RealClearPolitics, could become a scientific mouthpiece for the Trump administration and a platform that these experts allege could publish dubious research.\u201d [ Wired<\/a> ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notice that the \u2018experts\u2019 are unnamed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And making a very important point about science and medical  research is Gigi Gronvall:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 \u201cThis seems like more of a club newsletter than a scientific journal,\u201d says Gigi Gronvall<\/a>, an immunologist and professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Besides not being asked to join, Gronvall may be objecting to point 4 of the journal\u2019s Four Pillars:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Journal of the Academy of Public Health<\/em><\/a> has Four Pillars that distinguish it: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Open access, so that scientific articles can be read by all scientists and anyone in the public.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Open peer reviews that anyone can read at the same time as they read articles; signed by the reviewer.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Rewarding reviewers with an honorarium and public acknowledgement.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Removal of article gatekeeping, letting the Academy of Public Health\u2019s distinguished scientists freely publish all their research results in a timely and efficient manner, together with their associated peer reviews.\u201d\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    From the by-laws<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the Journal of the Academy of Public Health, members of the Academy may publish any public health related scientific article on which they are co-author, and as specified in the Author Guidelines of the Journal.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Any member of the Journal Editorial Board may invite prominent public health scientists as new members of the Academy by sending a written invitation to join the Academy. Nominations may be submitted without prior consultation with the nominated public health scientist, and acceptance by the invitee will result in immediate induction into the Academy.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Academy members may nominate prominent public health scientists to be new members. Nominations should be sent to the Academy Board.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The only criteria for membership shall be the quality and extent of their already published public health work.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    And while Gigi Gronvall<\/a>  may feel left out, all she need do to be included is to do good work and be nominated by any member of the editorial Board or member of the Academy itself.   Calling their Journal \u201ca club newsletter\u201d is like referring to the Royal Society\u2019s journal<\/a>s<\/a> \u201cPhilosophical Transactions\u201d, \u201cProceedings A\u201d and \u201cProceedings B\u201d<\/a> as club newsletters because one hasn\u2019t been invited to join the Royal Society \u2013 whose membership is determined by a very similar procedure.  The Royal Society\u2019s journals are today operated similarly to the Science, Nature, and Elsevier<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Wired goes on with another detractor: \u201cCarl Bergstrom<\/a>, a theoretical and evolutionary biologist, believes the journal is part of an ongoing effort to cast doubt around established scientific consensus. \u201cIf you can create the illusion that there is not a predominance of opinion that says, vaccines and masks are effective ways of controlling the pandemic, then you can undermine that notion of scientific consensus, you can create uncertainty, and you can push a particular agenda forward<\/em>\u201d.   Bergstrom is apparently not interested in the validity of scientific studies, only whether or not they support his favored pre-existing consensuses while simultaneously fearing that open peer-review will not automatically disqualify non-consensus-supporting papers.      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kulldorff [Martin Kulldorff, PhD<\/a>,<\/em><\/strong> Founding Editor-in-Chief] told WIRED that the journal will be a venue for open discourse and academic freedom. \u201cI think it\u2019s important that scientists can publish what they think is important science, and then that should be open for discussion, instead of preventing people from publishing\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Wired authors reached out to a lot of scientists to find negative viewpoints, including<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cTaylor Dotson, a professor at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology who studies the intersection of science and politics\u201d  who is quoted saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cThe worst-case scenario is you start having the journals for the people who are kind of populist and anti-establishment and the journals for the people who also read NPR and The New York Times.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    At least Dotson concedes, with caveats:     \u201cThese are good steps,\u201d says Dotson. \u201cIt\u2019s good that it is trying to push against the power of the big scientific publishers.\u201d But the researcher also warns that open-access studies might be more prominent and widely cited in the media just because they are easier to find and not because they are necessarily more scientifically rigorous.\u201d <\/em>[ Wi<\/a>r<\/a>ed<\/a> ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Dotson fails, of course , as many do, to point out that just because a paper is published in one of the  more prominent journals does not make it \u201cnecessarily more scientifically rigorous\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Bottom Lines:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1.       In the medical field, Public Health, there is a new journal based on many of the features being widely recommended to reform the subject of Scientific\/Academic Publishing. It is The Journal of the Academy of Public Health<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    2.  It is fully Open Access<\/a> \u2013 anyone with access to the internet can freely read all articles, papers and commentaries, including all the reviewer\u2019s comments and author\u2019s responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3.   Reviewers are both paid an honorarium and given credit for their efforts by being publicly named.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    4.   Members of the Academy of Public Health<\/a> [pdf of organizing document] are free to publish \u201call their research results\u201d <\/em>bypassing the gatekeeping seen in other journals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    5.  The Journal\u2019s Editorial Board is made up of some of the most distinguished and widely published researchers in the fields of Public Health and Epidemiology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    6.  Most of the attack points being made against the journal are political:  based on the perceived association of many of the members with conservative issues, that they may have contrarian views on the public health policies instituted during the Covid pandemic, and the tendency of many of the members of the Editorial Board not being the proper \u201cgo along to get along\u201d-type of researchers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    7. The new journal is a good sign that \u201cThe Vibe\u201d may be changing<\/a> in scientific publishing as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    # # # # #<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Author\u2019s Comment:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The status quo \u2013 the entrenched scientific publishers \u2013  do not want to give up their lucrative business models.   Academics and researchers who have made their reputations supporting consensus views fear good science findings that may invalidate those consensuses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This new effort in Public Health will not be easily shouted down by nay-sayers. The widely recognized quality of their Editorial Board members will (hopefully) make the journal unassailable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The WIRED article even attacks one Board Member for supporting the \u201clab leak\u201d theory, which has recently been acknowledged as most likely by the CIA.<\/a>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Let\u2019s support the new effort of Open Access publishing as best we can. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Thanks for reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    # # # # #<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    There is a long list of things that have been singled out as needing fixing in our current system of academic scientific publishing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":365891,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691833264,691833265,691827037,691823349,691818426],"class_list":["post-365888","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-academic-scientific-publishing","tag-academy-of-public-health","tag-peer-review","tag-politics","tag-science","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0-The-Vibe-comes-for-Academic-Publishing.jpeg?fit=3903%2C2836&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1xbq","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":401343,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=401343","url_meta":{"origin":365888,"position":0},"title":"Chinese Communist Party- funded research has flooded academic journals","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/10\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Top-tier academic journals such as\u00a0Nature,\u00a0Science, the\u00a0New England Journal of Medicine,\u00a0and the\u00a0Lancet\u00a0have published reams of research funded by the Chinese Communist Party in recent years, a\u00a0Washington Examiner\u00a0review\u00a0found.\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"85 climate experts\"","block_context":{"text":"85 climate experts","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=85-climate-experts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQOc2PU8w8Kp6NuzlMGsA7_BaWEjGmKDhp_o2bCxgySfTKxS-78beMFuvPTIXdb_QEk_-txdTMbZvSAI90XkUb7N5n60LHRXnOG-SxxvFb8XqBfY8A9zN0UNfErNJE-ZvdIv4xhQpp7xzwQB5fODZhWd07BDbg-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQOc2PU8w8Kp6NuzlMGsA7_BaWEjGmKDhp_o2bCxgySfTKxS-78beMFuvPTIXdb_QEk_-txdTMbZvSAI90XkUb7N5n60LHRXnOG-SxxvFb8XqBfY8A9zN0UNfErNJE-ZvdIv4xhQpp7xzwQB5fODZhWd07BDbg-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQOc2PU8w8Kp6NuzlMGsA7_BaWEjGmKDhp_o2bCxgySfTKxS-78beMFuvPTIXdb_QEk_-txdTMbZvSAI90XkUb7N5n60LHRXnOG-SxxvFb8XqBfY8A9zN0UNfErNJE-ZvdIv4xhQpp7xzwQB5fODZhWd07BDbg-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQOc2PU8w8Kp6NuzlMGsA7_BaWEjGmKDhp_o2bCxgySfTKxS-78beMFuvPTIXdb_QEk_-txdTMbZvSAI90XkUb7N5n60LHRXnOG-SxxvFb8XqBfY8A9zN0UNfErNJE-ZvdIv4xhQpp7xzwQB5fODZhWd07BDbg-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQOc2PU8w8Kp6NuzlMGsA7_BaWEjGmKDhp_o2bCxgySfTKxS-78beMFuvPTIXdb_QEk_-txdTMbZvSAI90XkUb7N5n60LHRXnOG-SxxvFb8XqBfY8A9zN0UNfErNJE-ZvdIv4xhQpp7xzwQB5fODZhWd07BDbg-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":262286,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=262286","url_meta":{"origin":365888,"position":1},"title":"Gas Stove Ban and The Nitrogen Dioxide\u2212Childhood Asthma Causal Claim, Part II","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/15\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"We published a study which evaluated gas stove\/NO2\u2212childhood asthma epidemiology research. We observed that this research topic has many falsehoods and hidden biases.","rel":"","context":"In \"gas stove\/NO2\u2212childhood asthma\"","block_context":{"text":"gas stove\/NO2\u2212childhood asthma","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=gas-stove-no2%e2%88%92childhood-asthma"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/07f6943fd4c27fe6bf2532c4654a73065.jpg?fit=1152%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/07f6943fd4c27fe6bf2532c4654a73065.jpg?fit=1152%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/07f6943fd4c27fe6bf2532c4654a73065.jpg?fit=1152%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/07f6943fd4c27fe6bf2532c4654a73065.jpg?fit=1152%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/07f6943fd4c27fe6bf2532c4654a73065.jpg?fit=1152%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330571,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=330571","url_meta":{"origin":365888,"position":2},"title":"The Ideological Capture of Academia: Scientific Censorship Motivated by Prosocial Concerns","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/30\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"An article published last November from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) titled \u201cProsocial Motives Underlie Scientific Censorship by Scientists: A Perspective and Research Agenda\u201d exposes a profound issue within the scientific community\u2014censorship driven by ideological motives under the guise of prosocial concerns. This phenomenon has far-reaching\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Censorship\"","block_context":{"text":"Censorship","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=censorship"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":421927,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=421927","url_meta":{"origin":365888,"position":3},"title":"The Problem with \u2018Peer Review\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/18\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"In May 2017 a sculpture was displayed at the Moscow Higher School of Economics, believe it or not, in honour of the great secular-rational god Peer Review. The sculpture takes the form of a die displaying on its five visible sides the possible results of review \u2014 \u201cAccept\u201d, \u201cMinor Changes\u201d,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Academia\"","block_context":{"text":"Academia","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=academia"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0AQM_aSJC0bx6EEQ4FtYE-7ZFVD1yUBuRIeVseTHJf4cfx57EmQIyhYWJCaWKFXyZdM8hjnqia42C9tNNudk5h_dulpszQdOQQ4pKcvG6ylG-VTTwzUUrFuzUffsjgOQi-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0AQM_aSJC0bx6EEQ4FtYE-7ZFVD1yUBuRIeVseTHJf4cfx57EmQIyhYWJCaWKFXyZdM8hjnqia42C9tNNudk5h_dulpszQdOQQ4pKcvG6ylG-VTTwzUUrFuzUffsjgOQi-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0AQM_aSJC0bx6EEQ4FtYE-7ZFVD1yUBuRIeVseTHJf4cfx57EmQIyhYWJCaWKFXyZdM8hjnqia42C9tNNudk5h_dulpszQdOQQ4pKcvG6ylG-VTTwzUUrFuzUffsjgOQi-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0AQM_aSJC0bx6EEQ4FtYE-7ZFVD1yUBuRIeVseTHJf4cfx57EmQIyhYWJCaWKFXyZdM8hjnqia42C9tNNudk5h_dulpszQdOQQ4pKcvG6ylG-VTTwzUUrFuzUffsjgOQi-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0AQM_aSJC0bx6EEQ4FtYE-7ZFVD1yUBuRIeVseTHJf4cfx57EmQIyhYWJCaWKFXyZdM8hjnqia42C9tNNudk5h_dulpszQdOQQ4pKcvG6ylG-VTTwzUUrFuzUffsjgOQi-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":430017,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=430017","url_meta":{"origin":365888,"position":4},"title":"Ghostwriters for the Courts: The Climate Litigation Network Behind a Withdrawn Judicial Manual","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/07\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Late last year the federal judiciary quietly released a document that almost nobody outside legal circles normally notices: the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Within weeks one section of that manual vanished. The reason it vanished reveals something deeply troubling about how climate science, academic institutions,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":278013,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=278013","url_meta":{"origin":365888,"position":5},"title":"Free Speech Fears Grow After Springer Nature \u201cMeekly Obeys\u201d Activist Demands For Alimonti Climate Paper Retraction","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/09\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Free speech is under attack in the politicised world of climate science and disgust at the recent cancellation of\u00a0Alimonti\u00a0et al. by Springer Nature continues to grow. Readers will\u00a0recall\u00a0that the paper written by four Italian scientists led by Physics Professor Gianluca Alimonti said past data did not point to a \u201cclimate\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Censorship\"","block_context":{"text":"Censorship","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=censorship"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/365888","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=365888"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/365888\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":365893,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/365888\/revisions\/365893"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/365891"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=365888"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=365888"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=365888"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}