Oh, boo hoo. Typical paid opinion by Phil Clarke Then there's Fordie whining over the participation of Wunsch, while simultaneously trying to claim the journal is no good. Do you really think he's allow his name to go on as a reviewer if the paper was "nutty" as Stokes claims?
Clarke argues that it's pay for play and therefore the publisher can't be trusted. Go look at fees for Nature and many others that offer open access.
But every one of you lamers was TOTALLY OK with Lewandowsky publishing his unethical psychoanalysis paper there, which was later retracted because people like me spoke up about it and the abhorrent practices he used. None of you did, not one. You were totally OK with the "science" in Frontiers then.
"I suspect that no honest publisher would have accepted this article. That’s why conspiracy theorists such as Herndon go to MDPI and Frontiers when they want to publish something — the acceptance and publication are all but guaranteed, as long as the author fee is paid." Well golly, that's just what happened to Lewandowsky with his conspiracy theory paper.
In April 2013, Frontiers in Psychology retracted a controversial article linking climate change denialism and "conspiracist ideation"; the retraction was itself also controversial and led to the resignations of at least three editors. (Boo hoo, they defended bad science that nobody else would publish.)
It's all about hate and tribalism with you folks. There's no honesty about science with any of you, especially the ones hiding behind fake names.
Feel free to be as upset as you wish.
Clarke argues that it's pay for play and therefore the publisher can't be trusted. Go look at fees for Nature and many others that offer open access.
But every one of you lamers was TOTALLY OK with Lewandowsky publishing his unethical psychoanalysis paper there, which was later retracted because people like me spoke up about it and the abhorrent practices he used. None of you did, not one. You were totally OK with the "science" in Frontiers then.
"I suspect that no honest publisher would have accepted this article. That’s why conspiracy theorists such as Herndon go to MDPI and Frontiers when they want to publish something — the acceptance and publication are all but guaranteed, as long as the author fee is paid." Well golly, that's just what happened to Lewandowsky with his conspiracy theory paper.
In April 2013, Frontiers in Psychology retracted a controversial article linking climate change denialism and "conspiracist ideation"; the retraction was itself also controversial and led to the resignations of at least three editors. (Boo hoo, they defended bad science that nobody else would publish.)
It's all about hate and tribalism with you folks. There's no honesty about science with any of you, especially the ones hiding behind fake names.
Feel free to be as upset as you wish.
-
Oh dear.
If anybody cares, I use my real name and (of course) never been paid to post.
#2 Paul Pukite
I won't likely put any more time into this review as apparently this paper has been rejected by at least the following journals:
- Adv in Meteorology
- AIP Advances
- Asia-Pacific JAS
- Earth and Space Science
- Earth Science Reviews
- Geoscience Model Development
- Intl J Climatology
- J Geophys Res-Atmos
- J of Climate
- Journal of Forecasting
- PLoS One
- Risk Analysis
- Science Bulletin
The author provided a list of all the negative reviews, archived in this online zip file: https://uploadfiles.io/vyu9e78n
"In October 2015, Frontiers was added to Jeffrey Beall's list of "Potential, possible, or probable" predatory open-access publishers.[5][37][10] The inclusion was met with backlash amongst some researchers.[5] In July 2016 Beall recommended that academics not publish their work in Frontiers journals, stating "the fringe science published in Frontiers journals stigmatizes the honest research submitted and published there",[38] and in October of that year Beall reported that reviewers have called the review process "merely for show"
And, writing about a chemtrails conspiracy article published in a Frontiers journal, Beall wrote: "The publication of this article is further evidence that Frontiers is little more than a vanity press. The fringe science published in Frontiers journals stigmatizes the honest research submitted and published there.
I suspect that no honest publisher would have accepted this article. That’s why conspiracy theorists such as Herndon go to MDPI and Frontiers when they want to publish something — the acceptance and publication are all but guaranteed, as long as the author fee is paid.
Frontiers’ peer review process is flawed. It is stacked in favor of accepting as many papers as possible in order to generate more revenue for the company. Frontiers is included on my list, and I recommend against publishing in its journals, which are rather expensive to publish in anyway."
https://web.archive.org/web/20160809165213/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/07/14/more-fringe-science-from-borderline-publisher-frontiers/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media#cite_note-38
Anthony WattsSeptember 9, 2019 at 2:30 AM