“Consider this, though. There is another track–a relatively new track–that PNAS allows, that in my view is even worse than the NAS contributor mode: It’s called “Direct Submission.” What does this mean? It means that the authors have secured in advance a”pre-arranged editor”? Oh–that smacks of a Soviet era style “ole boys network.” Find an editor in advance–a friend, colleague, mentor, brother, sister–someone who will agree in advance to get the paper published. Have a look at this, again from the PNAS submission site:

Prior to submission to PNAS, an author may ask an NAS member to oversee the review process of a Direct Submission. Prearranged editors should only be used when an article falls into an area without broad representation in the Academy, or for research that may be considered counter to a prevailing view or too far ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing, and in which the member is expert. If the NAS member agrees, the author should coordinate submission to ensure that the member is available, and should alert the member that he or she will be contacted by the PNAS Office within 48 hours of submission to confirm his or her willingness to serve as a prearranged editor and to comment on the importance of the work.

Now this actually manages to get around not one, but two levels of review. After all, for the ordinary-person’s peer review track, the editorial board/editor generally rejects 75% of the incoming papers without their even reaching peer review. The “pre-arranged editor” trick circumnavigates the need to go through this initial triage selection process, and shunts the paper directly into press.

Pretty amazing, eh? All you have to say is that there isn’t enough general expertise on the board, or that the paper is–how do they put it? Here it is: Counter to a prevailing view or too far ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing. So if your paper is contrary to current views or “ahead of its time” (what the hell is that supposed to mean–and who decides this anyway?)–get a free pass. But the catch? You need to have a buddy on the editorial board. Otherwise, who will do this for you. You need to be part of the “ole boys network.”

Doesn’t everyone have a disclaimer these days? After all, you don’t want to be sued. There is a statement in the submission site that says the following:

“Papers with a prearranged editor are published with a footnote to that effect.”

Well, why not be more explicit? These papers are not peer reviewed and should be treated as such.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/23/13012.full.pdf There’s Solomon’s article. Look just above the preface, and you’ll find this: “Edited by James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, and approved August 27, 1999 (received for review June 21, 1999)” Smoking gun for how Solomon got her poisoned science article in: she arranged for an editor to shoo it into publication in PNAS.

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/23/13012.full.pdf There’s Solomon’s offending article. Note Figure 3, where she represents all of Scott’s figures as daily minimums, whereas Scott’s temperatures from March 10 onward are daily midday near surface temperatures, and Simpson (Vol. I, page 20) states that the minimum temperature occurred around midnight. Solomon most likely realized how ridiculous midday temperatures of -40 F would look in March (imagine the minimums!), and thus to keep her claim together committed data dragging. Any “peer reviewed journal” which allows data dragging is not credible. In fact, a guy with a Yahoo email address writing an article for arXiv can be more credible than that.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/12/the-wisdom-of-solomon/ Solomon against accurate measurement
http://climateaudit.org/2008/11/24/santer-and-the-4-noaa-coauthors/ Solomon doesn’t even have the data in the paper she co-authored
http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/24/solomons-divergence-problem/ Solomon won’t keep her story accurate
http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/24/noaa-misrepresents-inspector-general-report/ NOAA misrepresents the Inspector General’s report. Favorite comment: http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/24/noaa-misrepresents-inspector-general-report/#comment-256786
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/03/crowley-tries-to-get-data-from-jacoby/ Solomon coerces someone to try to prevent them from getting data

I wouldn’t trust Murray: he’s very slanted towards Scott and against Amundsen, and has a habit of being very selective with his quoting. One case of selective quoting that caught my eye was on page 3 of his article “The use and abuse of dogs on
Scott’s and Amundsen’s South Pole expeditions”, when he quotes Scott (Voyage of the “Discovery”, 1905, page 343). He left out two entire sentences which came after it, where Scott trumpets the virtues of man hauling, so devotion to man hauling would not appear to be a potential reason behind his reluctance to use dogs. Also, Murray makes no mention of Scott’s killing of puppies during the Discovery Expedition. Scott’s reason for killing them? “it was getting [to be] a positive nuisance to see so many of these wretched undersized little beasts for ever gorging themselves on the midden heap.” Huntford (1999), p. 174. I believe Huntford did provide a source for this statement in the 1979 edition) Sienicki lays out Murray’s issues with honesty in said article in the appendix of another article he wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5355

I would recommend this paper by Carl Murry it is certainly of interest to anybody looking at the heroic age of Antarctic exploration.

http://eprints.utas.edu.au/2627/1/01front.pdf

It is Sienicki’s that is challenging the accepted view and up to him to prove it. In my view he uses flawed assumptions, inappropriate methodology, and comes to incorrect conclusions.

To add to that I have read the publications of both and find one very compelling and the other something of a joke, I leave it to you to decide which is which.

Finaly I have a greater respect for the work of Dr Solomon a senior scientist at NOAA, than Sienicki someone with little or no history of publishing in the field, with a yahoo email address. That may not be fair but it is the case nonetheless.