🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CHsDpq.Ky9@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rjw9y@envsci.evsc.virginia.edu. (rjw9y) writes:
>I am the author of GCMs-misuse.  Thanks to Rick Adair for coming to my
>rescue.  I responded to Len's grammar flame by e-mail to him.  My
>feeling is that some jargon like '2xCO2' and 'eigenevctor analysis' may
>have been the problem.
>
Let me refer the poster to my signature.   I don't get confused by terms
like `2XCO2' and `eigenvector analysis'.

As best I can tell from the rest of the current posting, he is complaining
that a paper or papers were rejected by Science and by Nature on the
basis of criteria that were applied inconsistently vis a vis GCMs.
This was not clear to me in the original posting, which I think was
very badly written.  (I am still not sure if the poster is one of
the authors of these papers.)  As to the complaint, I have the
following comment.    The refereeing process is hardly perfect.
It is certainly possible that the `peer group' doing the reviewing
is biased against the approach taken by the authors.   It is also
possible that the authors don't understand the basic principles
of the subject.   I don't see how we can possibly determine the
truth of these matters in a forum like this.  I suggest that the
authors keep trying journals until they find one that is more
sympathetic to their approach.


Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208