Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Tom Chivers on 28gate | Main | Climate Dialogue »
Wednesday
Nov142012

A new kind of journal

Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ, describes an interesting new biomedical journal called F1000Research.

F1000Research, will post papers, including opinion pieces and case reports as well as clinical trials and other studies, within hours of them being submitted. If a study includes data then the authors must make it available—as the BMJ is now insisting on for clinical trials. With F1000Research the data will be available through the website. The data are citable, and the creators of the data will be credited when their data are used for new studies.

Sounds excellent. I wonder if this kind of thing will catch on in climatology?

Smith's article is here.

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (12)

Can you imagine the Great Gods of Climatology like Mann or Jones or Hansen allowing the hoipolloi to see their data in real time?

It's about as likely as the BBC making a programme about paedophilia, accusing an innocent man and the DG and half the executive team having to resign.......

With kind regards from all your friends at Porcine Aviation.

Nov 14, 2012 at 8:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Bish- there already is a place for open access to climatology papers w/data mandatory...

http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/

Open discussion before pub is open to everyone. Enjoy your day.

Nov 14, 2012 at 9:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterSera

If a study includes data then the authors must make it available—as the BMJ is now insisting on for clinical trials.

This is a huge improvement for the BMJ. A few years ago, I asked the journal for some study data: I was told “Authors own the data” and that was it.

Nov 14, 2012 at 9:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterDouglas J. Keenan

"It's about as likely as the BBC making a programme about paedophilia, accusing an innocent man and the DG and half the executive team having to resign......." You forgot to add "& all paid off to the tune of millions using taxpayers dosh!!!!"

Nov 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

"I wonder if this kind of thing will catch on in climatology?" Such heavy sarcasm ill becomes you, My Lord Bishop.

Nov 14, 2012 at 10:11 AM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

The shape of things to come? I hope you'll be able to give this a mention on wuwt-tv.

Nov 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterBloke down the pub

We've had a rash of threads about how the BBC has closed down public debate about climate change since about 2005. George Monbiot and his ilk have publicly endorsed this policy.

The problem for the warmists is that the policy seems to have had limited, or no, success: there's still a very sizeable part of the population that don't buy CAGW. Perhaps the public are thick, but I doubt that. Maybe the public have followed the deniers' campaign on in the internet, but I doubt it. Those two explanations seem to be what Monbiot assumes. Perhaps the public aren't prepared to accept what seems like dogma being rammed down their throats? But this campaign has had a long enough run (eight years) and its clearly failed, and will continue to fail.

Perhaps the Dutch have an approach that will work - either way, with a swing to CAGW belief or the opposite. However, I can't for a moment see any change of tack at the BBC or the MET Office.

Nov 14, 2012 at 10:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhcflDSUMvc

Nov 14, 2012 at 11:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterAdrian

If the submissions are of scant worth, but the public discourse has been so suborned to reading trash on the subject (biomedical research), then this "new journal" is just an(other) indication that the rot has advanced further there than it has in climate science -- no one is left to speak the truth, of how little is actually known, and how bad the underlying theory is, which everyone takes for granted as fact, so they do not fear making the biomedical propaganda machine more transparent. I would suggest the interested reader of that journal look out for papers on models, rather than experiments, being run.

Nov 14, 2012 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Dale Huffman

The peer review process is broken. I have had professors tell me of occassions where they have been asked to review papers which they themselves were co-authors of.

Nov 14, 2012 at 12:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterJ.Gol

Link to the new journal:

http://f1000research.com/articles/

Nov 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Sounds like they're re-inventing 'Medical Hypotheses'

Perhaps they should check with past editors of that jourrnal to see how popular the approach was with the establishment and the gatekeepers?

Nov 14, 2012 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>