"The need for an impartial editor to ensure peer review is properly handled is also a requirement for scientific assessments. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has formalized this by appointing a “Review Editor” to each chapter. These editors play the same role as journal editors: they are auditors of the review process.
Their main responsibility is to take the complete record of comments from expert and government reviewers and verify that the author teams have responded to every single one, either by revising the text or by providing a transparent and scientifically valid reason for not doing so. This structured process guarantees that criticism is not simply dismissed by angry authors"
I agree. This should be the process. However, in the most recent IPCC WG1 report, Richard Betts encouraged me to submit comments. I did.
The IPCC never responded to any of them. They failed your criteria.
Here they are
Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2019: A Review of the AR6 First Draft of IPCC Working Group I (WG1) report, May 2019.
Hi Roger--At least when I was a review editor, a file of comments and responses was prepared and I believe then available through the IPCC. With often many hundreds of submitted comments from dozens of reviewers and more, often with multiple reviewer comments on the same section and with different perspectives, all the reviewer comments were provided to the authors as an integrated master file of comments, ordered by lines--not organized by the reviewer who sent them in (indeed, the comments were to be addressed without regard to the particular reviewer--except reviewers often cite their own papers, etc.). The responses to the comments were then added into the Master file right after the comment made. As far as I know, there was not a mailing back to each reviewer of the specific responses to their specific comments--instead, the reviewer needed to look up the master file of comments and responses and look for responses to their comments in the master file. So, just wondering if are noting that you did not get a personal letter back (your shortcoming) or you looked up the file and found your review comments and found no response or an inadequate and directly relevant response (indicative of a review editor shortcoming).
Also, as noted, there were often multiple comments, not uncommonly of differing views--so in responding, did you also check the master file of comments and responses not just for your particular review comments and responses, but also what other reviewers may have offered as their comments (and presuming that those not commenting might have liked that section--so is your review comment insightful enough to prevail, etc.--or at least merit clarifying the phrasing and/or point being made? Or are your comments here made just seeing that the authors did not change the text to match your comment without you checking the masterful to see what they their response was and you missed picking up the clarified phrasing they inserted to help a subsequent reader to better understand their perspective even though it might still differ from your views. This is all said just to make the point that, as Andy noted, it is quite an involved process with each party (author, reviewer, review editor having roles to carry through). Best, Mike
Hi Andrew
You wrote
"The need for an impartial editor to ensure peer review is properly handled is also a requirement for scientific assessments. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has formalized this by appointing a “Review Editor” to each chapter. These editors play the same role as journal editors: they are auditors of the review process.
Their main responsibility is to take the complete record of comments from expert and government reviewers and verify that the author teams have responded to every single one, either by revising the text or by providing a transparent and scientifically valid reason for not doing so. This structured process guarantees that criticism is not simply dismissed by angry authors"
I agree. This should be the process. However, in the most recent IPCC WG1 report, Richard Betts encouraged me to submit comments. I did.
The IPCC never responded to any of them. They failed your criteria.
Here they are
Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2019: A Review of the AR6 First Draft of IPCC Working Group I (WG1) report, May 2019.
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/ipcc-wg-final-3.pdf
Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2020: Comment on the AR6 Second Draft of IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) report. February 2020.
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ipcc-letter-1.pdf
Best Wishes
Roger Pielke Sr
Hi Roger--At least when I was a review editor, a file of comments and responses was prepared and I believe then available through the IPCC. With often many hundreds of submitted comments from dozens of reviewers and more, often with multiple reviewer comments on the same section and with different perspectives, all the reviewer comments were provided to the authors as an integrated master file of comments, ordered by lines--not organized by the reviewer who sent them in (indeed, the comments were to be addressed without regard to the particular reviewer--except reviewers often cite their own papers, etc.). The responses to the comments were then added into the Master file right after the comment made. As far as I know, there was not a mailing back to each reviewer of the specific responses to their specific comments--instead, the reviewer needed to look up the master file of comments and responses and look for responses to their comments in the master file. So, just wondering if are noting that you did not get a personal letter back (your shortcoming) or you looked up the file and found your review comments and found no response or an inadequate and directly relevant response (indicative of a review editor shortcoming).
Also, as noted, there were often multiple comments, not uncommonly of differing views--so in responding, did you also check the master file of comments and responses not just for your particular review comments and responses, but also what other reviewers may have offered as their comments (and presuming that those not commenting might have liked that section--so is your review comment insightful enough to prevail, etc.--or at least merit clarifying the phrasing and/or point being made? Or are your comments here made just seeing that the authors did not change the text to match your comment without you checking the masterful to see what they their response was and you missed picking up the clarified phrasing they inserted to help a subsequent reader to better understand their perspective even though it might still differ from your views. This is all said just to make the point that, as Andy noted, it is quite an involved process with each party (author, reviewer, review editor having roles to carry through). Best, Mike
Hi again Mike - I checked again. Even used Claude to search. Nothing. No evidence of them. They were not even entered. A failure of the system.
I hope now that I posted them, you, Andrew and others can at least look at them to see if you agree or disagree.
Roger Sr
Who's editting the editors? :)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -Juvenal, early 2nd century CE.
Dang! I feel like a plaigerizer now. Romans wrote some cool stuff and even gave us aqueducts ( a climate solution )
"I feel like a plastered now" makes alternative sense!
Spell check always cons me.. bait and switch after I hit <RETURN>. Sometimes, they repkace my tripe with alot better tripe. It’s all in the tripe.
“Luckily, there are thousands of climate scientists out there, so it should not be a problem to find a half dozen or so who are unbiased.”
Interesting hypothesis. Not sure it will fly.
Did your 450-page response to the DOE Climate Working Group report go through the “brutal" peer review process?
You drink too much water you die. QED
You inhale too much CO2, likewise
Too much CO2 causes Earth to burn
It's about excessive amounts, not the subject itself.
Fossils already emitted way beyond their safe limits of ghgs. Plug, baby! Plug!
And Ken please prefix your posts with health warnings to heart patients and epileptic that reading your words could trigger a catastrophic event.