- Special Sections
- Public Notices
Back in the ”old corps,” getting a paper communicated and published in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science) was a cause for celebration up and down the hall and an “Attaboy” from Harold.
We regarded these as cherished publications, justifying the “all-nighters” required to collect data from a system that had no concept of the eight-hour day or the five-day week.
More recently, we read that in the field of Climate Science, leading investigators gained editorial control of the peer review process introducing bias into publication by selectively accepting manuscripts supporting the notion of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) and rejecting papers holding any contrary view. We were reassured (Chick Keller, Monitor op/ed, Feb. 14, 2010) that all papers get published but we continue to find that the bias persists and that the practice of co-opting and then hiding behind the peer review process is widespread.
Click the question mark below to see where your account ID appears on your mailing label.