Taxacom: Science fraud - Nature
Tony Rees
tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 24 13:38:18 CDT 2023
Also comments today from
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews%2F2023-08-science-publisher-flawed-climate.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C14db6a9bdfef4b7de51e08dba4d151a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638284991541627436%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5VFdr1ICOv3QO9w7FHUyR4Dtb0oN5AjO0ymHqs0e%2B60%3D&reserved=0 :
"The paper's authors were identified in order as Gianluca Alimonti, a
physicist at a nuclear physics institute; Luigi Mariani, an agricultural
meteorologist, and physicists Franco Prodi and Renato Angelo Ricci.
The latter two were named as signatories of the World Climate Declaration,
a text that repeated various debunked claims about climate change, an AFP
fact check article found.
Their study was "not published in a climate journal," Stefan Rahmstorf,
Head of Earth Systems at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
told AFP at the time.
"This is a common avenue taken by 'climate skeptics' in order to avoid peer
review by real experts in the field." "
Regards - Tony
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 04:22, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I took a look at the paper which is online and open access. I must say
> when I saw it at the time of original publication I thought its main
> conclusions very odd and at variance with almost all other research on the
> topic.
>
> Just to be clear per your thread title - the paper does not appear in
> "Nature" (which I imagine might have a higher degree of scrutiny), but in
> "The European Physical Journal Plus" which is a different outlet, albeit
> from the same publisher.
>
> Best - Tony
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C14db6a9bdfef4b7de51e08dba4d151a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638284991541627436%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=a6GEvSTW5jFYkqgcoIpJ%2FN6vVL9OuaRLIVQq3vFcneI%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 03:59, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> Recently when I noted about ZooNova as a publication option, a Taxacom
>> colleague implied (oof list) that the journal was dubious because he
>> considered one (or more) papers to be dubious (in that person's
>> judgement).
>> Here is a classic case of a 'Top' journal retracting a paper, showing that
>> the supposed 'prestige' of a journal has nothing necessarily to do with
>> its
>> content. In this case it was picked up on because the paper in question
>> appears to have run afoul of a sufficient number of prominent or
>> influential researchers. In biogeography this does not happen, as the
>> prominent (powerful and influential) players all play to the fraud (that
>> being the misrepresentation of what CODA methods can or cannot do or
>> support). Power is everything in science.
>>
>> Top science publisher Springer Nature said it has withdrawn a study that
>> presented misleading conclusions on climate change impacts after an
>> investigation prompted by an AFP inquiry.
>> AFP reported in September 2022 on concerns over the peer-reviewed study by
>> four Italian scientists that appeared earlier that year in the European
>> Physical Journal Plus, published by Springer Nature.
>> The study had drawn positive attention from climate-sceptic media.
>> The paper, titled "A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times
>> of global warming", purported to review data on possible changes in the
>> frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and
>> other
>> extreme weather events.
>> Several climate scientists contacted by AFP said the study manipulated
>> data, cherry picked facts and ignored others that would contradict their
>> assertions, prompting the publisher to launch an internal review.
>> "The Editors and publishers concluded that they no longer had confidence
>> in
>> the results and conclusions of the article," Springer Nature told AFP in
>> an
>> email late Wednesday.
>> The journal's editors published an online note stating that the paper was
>> retracted due to concerns over "the selection of the data, the analysis
>> and
>> the resulting conclusions".
>> --
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C14db6a9bdfef4b7de51e08dba4d151a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638284991541627436%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VNIw71FlLLiZYMY6TFG00b%2Fo7qL7jGONMam9B8VJ69g%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
>> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C14db6a9bdfef4b7de51e08dba4d151a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638284991541783740%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SoojnFRu6Zn5x%2BPxnxJSmmunSaIXhc%2FeBLdtSAnGmN4%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
>> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>>
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list