On his blog Skepticalscience, esteemed doctoral fellow John Cook writes of a commenter’s reaction to his colleague Lewandowsky’s as yet unpublished paper:
“LOG12 was fundemenatlly [sic] flawed from the start, and throughout. It offered no valuable insight or understanding as a result. It is clear to any rational outside observer it had one purpose – to be used to promote the authors advocacy of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming – and to demean and denigrate those who do not believe as he does. The fact this paper has never been published, as Lewandowsky’s repeatedly claims, confirms this finding.”
Cook laughs at this commenter as a ‘conspiracist’ for thinking non-publication confirmed how bad the paper really was.
It will be interesting to see whether this commenter resists the “Something Must Be Wrong” urge when LOG12 is published or continue to assert that the research is “a fraud”.
No, Cook. That’s not the ‘something must be wrong’ urge, that’s the ‘any serious academic would see right through this’ type of wishful thinking.
Thinking your colleague’s paper didn’t get published, because of how bad it is, is placing faith in the academic peer-review process, yet. Where one hopes reviewers and editors would see questions and criticism raised about the paper. Your commenters and critics come from a place where higher standards reside.