All of the articles have been submitted to journals, and we have received substantial journal peer reviews. None of the reviews have indicated any mistakes in the papers; they have instead been primarily suggestions for additions, further citations of the literature.
How is that compatible with
the journal turned the paper down and asked for major revisions?
or indeed, direct from McK, “I submitted my review just before the end of September 2011, outlining what I saw were serious shortcomings in their methods and arguing that their analysis does not establish valid grounds for the conclusions they assert. I suggested the authors be asked to undertake a major revision… I recommended the paper not be published”.
Someone is telling porkies. But who? At this point, I’m inclined to suspect Elizabeth Muller. I presume she was relying on the confidentiality of the review process in order to get away with misleading us all. As a great philospher once said, Naughty naughty, very naughty. By which I mean telling porkies. Breaking review confidentiality is a comparatively minor sin.
Top comment of the day:
Well, well, Richard Muller seems to be taking flack from all sides today. Note to Dr. Muller – tacking flack does not always mean you are over the target. Mooning an “88” crew can also achieve a similar response.
* Some newspaper that isn’t keen on publication pre review.
* McK’s review of an earlier version of something. Which answers one question: why make McK a reviewer? Answer, because they cite him.