This editorial by the governing board of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology caught my attention, and was a real surprise. It says:
As part of a planned special section on climate change, an earlier AJES editor solicited an article by Andy May and Marcel Crok that was intended to counterbalance the scientific consensus that climate change is a serious problem caused largely by human activities. However, since the article was written more in a spirit of defiance or rebellion than as a contribution to a dialog, it has posed a number of problems for the journal.
So far, so problematic. But then it takes a turn for the worse:
The easiest decision would have been to simply pull the article and to publish the other articles in the issue. However, similar articles are ubiquitous on the Internet, and withholding publication will not restrict the flow of popular criticism of the climate consensus. Since the aim of AJES is to serve the public by discussing questions of social significance, we have chosen to make use of an awkward situation by confronting directly the abuse of research methods in this article. Rather than backtracking and refusing to publish an article that would normally be rejected, we prefer to publish the article in question in combination with (1) this explanation of why AJES has chosen to publish it, (2) a rebuttal by physicist Tinus Pulles, and (3) an examination by Clifford Cobb, a former AJES editor, of the social and political context of the climate debate. We hope that everyone might gain by opening climate-change denialism to scrutiny in this way.
I'm not a huge fan of de-platforming people. However, this is a case where the authors should have no expectation of being published. As the governing board says, the article would have normally been rejected. If you read the rest of the editorial, it is clear that the article fails to meet basic standards of scholarship, and for that reason alone it should not have been published. Because there should have been no expectation of being published, the authors aren't really being denied a platform that they otherwise should have had access to. The tricky thing is that the article was invited. But nevertheless, invited articles should still be subject to peer review and editorial discretion on their suitability for publication.
To make matters worse, the governing board's response is ineffective. While they have published a rebuttal and the editorial, most readers will access the May and Crok article directly from the web. Accessing the article directly here, there is no indication on that page that the rebuttal or the editorial even exist. A small amount of comfort is provided by the article not being open access, and therefore behind the Wiley paywall. Only readers with an institutional or other subscription will have access to it (although there are ungated versions available elsewhere). Fortunately, the rebuttal by retired environmental scientist Tinus Pulles is open access, and therefore available to everyone. But again, few who read the original article will know that the rebuttal exists, even though it is available open access.
Climate change is a serious issue, and requires serious scholarship. While it may be possible that the broad scientific consensus is wrong (it wouldn't be the first time), it would take some theoretically well-reasoned and empirically strong research to overturn it. This is not that research. And for that reason, it is incredibly disappointing that the governing board of American Journal of Economics and Sociology have given it an airing. We should expect better from the authorities that are tasked with protecting the quality and integrity of published research.
No comments:
Post a Comment