This post by Brandon Shollenberger shows Lewandowsky and Cook to have fabricated quotes from material left by commenters on blogs. The quotes were then used to imply entirely different meanings from what the original comments intended, in their peer-reviewed climate communication paper in the prestigious Frontiers in Psychology stable.
How is this possible? The peer-review process usually has a strong track-record of trapping errors such as the above.
Lewandowsky and Cook’s paper, a draft of which is available, also lacks description of an institutional review process or approval for their study. Usually reviewers are prompt in asking for such things and rarely, if ever can anyone get past them. Even the lowliest of studies involving human subjects entails an ethics board or an institutional review board examination.
How did this happen? Maybe, there is a simple explanation. Perhaps Lewandowsky and Cook obtained institutional review via proper channels but failed to mention them in their paper.