Some of you may have heard of the “journal” Pattern Recognition in Physics. It’s a new journal (only 2 issues), but already many of us have come to regard it as nothing but a mouthpiece for some rather loony climate denier nonsense.
It’s published by Copernicus Publishing, an otherwise reputable outfit. Have they undermined their credibility forever?
No!
Open Mind 
“Patterns Of Malpractice”
— by Horatio Algeranon
Patterns of malpractice
A cinch to recognize:
Look for pottus crackticus
And other sciency lies
“Noise Reduction”
— by Horatio Algeranon
To get a look at truth
You average out the noise
Outliars in the booth
With mathturbating toys
This is true poetry in motion.
Tallbloke was going on and on a few weeks ago (on Twitter) about how he had a new paper coming out in a “high impact” journal.
I guess the “high impact” now has something to do with the velocity at which the egg hit his face.
I read somewhere that Tallbloke was actually an editor at the defunct journal.
I think he was only named as an editor of the second volume, which was mainly the special issue that lead to Copernicus realising that maybe their initial concerns were justified. Supposedly because he helped to find the reviewers.
With “The Hum” and the “Planetary Beat” it sounds like we have the Harmony of the Spheres all over again …
oops a couple of links got dropped
Planetary Beat (ba-ba-ba-boom) :
Music of the Spheres
Quick, call the auditors!
Seems like a strange name for a scientific journal–to emphasize “patterns” perhaps to the exclusion of theory, mechanisms or hypothesis testing.
Steady the Buffs. Pattern Recognition is a legitimate subject of study with its own Pattern Recognition Society complete with journal. The subject does have a wide range of application areas as the Society explains:- “We consider pattern recognition in the broad sense, and we assume that the journal will be read by people with a common interest in pattern recognition but from many diverse backgrounds. These include biometrics, target recognition, biological taxonomy, meteorology, space science, classification methods, character recognition, image processing, industrial applications, neural computing, and many others.”
However most of it is the likes of computer science, information theory, optical processing techniques rather than interpretation of bog-standard physical systems.
Yes, pattern recognition is a very real and interesting field. This ex-journal should probably have been named “Wiggle Matching in Physics”
GFW:
Didn’t you mean to say “Wiggle Matching in Fizzicks” ???
They should have called it “Elephant hunting”.
The Hum?
Hmmm, JSE, my favorite dog astrology jounral, once published The Hum: An Anomalous Sound Heard Around the World, by David Deming, who later wrote Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, with the infamous “we have to get rid of the MWP” pseudo-quote.
That article was first actually published on Fred SInger’s SEPP website (3 months before journal publication), but referenced later as totally credible by Richard Lindzen, Steve McIntyre and Andrew Montford (discussion m here.)
See JSE is a dog.
Good action by Copernicus and those who brought this to their attention.
Somewhat reminiscent of Michaels, de Freitas and Pal Review, although more like Energy&Environment.
“Maximum Impact (on-a) Journal”
— by Horatio Algeranon
Mörner is in mörnering
Shifting on his Axel
The pattern of his solar fling
Has led to impact maximal
Took a look at the articles they’ve had so far. Half the content has come from Scafetta and Morner! And the other stuff is no great shakes, either. Damn, to paraphrase Max Weber, were I in the smallest room in my house, the best thing to do with this journal would be to “put it behind me.”
Close. Max Reger, the composer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Reger
One has to be very careful around here.
All kinds of experts lurking about with knowledge of minutia (and even Einzelheiten) that would put Alex Trebek to shame.
Gotta stand up for another composer–can’t see poor Reger’s best-known bon mot attributed to a sociologist. Besides, for once I had the opportunity to comment on something I actually am reasonably well-informed about… couldn’t resist that, now could I?
Kevin, the correction is appreciated.
Don’t get me wrong, Kevin.
I am a firm believer in the idea that composers should stick up for one another because otherwise, not only would they not get credit for their valuable contributions, we would undoubtedly have all sorts of libelous claims being made about them — and emails being attributed to them, like “Mozart tried to hide the decrescendo!”
Personally, I don’t have any real “expertise” in any area, which is why I usually stick to goofy “poetry” when it comes to comments.
“Hide the Decrescendo”
— by Horatio Algeranon
Mozart tried to hide
The decrescendo slide
To cover up the horn
Which sounded quite forlorn
“Mozart tried to hide the decrescendo!”
:-)
(Or was it really Salieri?)
I thought Salieri was the fellow who wrote the book: “Mozartgate: The ImperialCourt Notes”
but I’m no expert.
Ah. great memories, my initiation to classical music appreciation…
Just so, Martin…
:-)
Here’s Mozart’s Nature trick to hide the decrescendo
Hmmm…. With those contributors, I’m starting to recognise a pattern…..
Oh!
” the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.”
Nice!
If you go through the papers themselves, you can see who edited and in several cases (some of) the referees. And so we have Mörner acting as edited for Scafetta, but in another paper as reviewer, Mörner being reviewed by Solheim, and Mörner acting as editor for Solheim, and this is just for the names that are indicated. They then write a “conclusion” paper with several of the authors and a few others (which likely includes some of the anonymous reviewers), meaning a co-publication between the author, editor and reviewers.
Ouch.
“Journalistic Skepotism”
— by Horatio Algeranon
Selecting referees
On skepotistic basis
Malpractice if you please
In scientific cases
////
OK, no more. I apologize, but this kind of thing is irresistible.
Horatio — Keep it up! Keep it up!
Edward Wegman would have a field day with this social network.
OK, I lied when I said no more.
“Peericycles”
— by Horatio Algeranon
A pattern is apparent
A cycle of the peers
Reality-efferent
A “theory” born of beers
…but that’s it (til next time)
Social network? More like a social necklace.
Still, probably about the level at which Wegman could work and not get in over his head.
One of the multiple ironies about the Wegman report is that it is in itself an example of that which it purports to criticize, since authorship and research was pretty concentrated among a small number of like-minded associates, notably Wegman and his grad student Yasmin Said–a problem they could have partially addressed by bringing in an appropriate co-author rather than plagiarizing Dr. Bradley.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/02/george-mason-university-reprimands-edward-wegmand-/1#.Ut1Obhb0Bz8
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/strange_problems_in_the_wegman_report/
But I suppose we shouldn’t beat a dead horse too hard.
Thumbs up for the publisher.
The crowd roars
The gurgling and the groping
The rest you know
Ten lovers violating
“Pattern recognition in physics” made me think of Dr Scafetta, and I was delighted to find some papers of his included in this journal. Neat.
I’m very grateful to Tamino, Skeptical Science and Realclimate for debunking this kind of paper, and for stimulating my interest in statistics at the same time. When I first read one of Scafetta’s articles I had no idea what to make of it. Nowadays, although inevitably much of the maths goes above my head, I marvel at the intricacy of the mathematical models that Scafetta comes up with, but I very much doubt their predictive value.
tamino, the subject of this post is unnecessarily long. It should have just been ‘Mal’.
Malpractice makes malperfect.
To paraphrase PT Barnum, no one ever went broke by underestimating the stupidity of denialists. They had a nice little journal there until they went for broke before even starting.
“Copernicus Dissents”
— by Horatio Algeranon
Morner claimed
“The sun’s to blame”
But “No!” said Nicolaus
“It’s at the center”
No dissent there,
But CO2’s the cause”
I look on most of the denialists like the creationists or maybe the anarchists around the turn of the 19th/20th century. They are so convinced they are right that they think everyone will jump to their side if they can just get their message “out there”. Scafetta’s article in Physics Today wound up being an own goal. They’re kind of like the string theorist who was caught with his girlfriend by his wife. “But, Honey,” he said. “I can explain everything.” The problem is that they can explain everything whether its true or not. Scafetta is a wonderful example of a physicist who doesn’t have the foggiest notion of how science works.
The very fact they dived straight into publishing non-science indicates that they are true believers, rather than in it for the con.
What is interesting is how people like Tol immediately dive in and start prevaricating, indicating just how uninterested in the science he actually is.
Of course it will also mean some work for the mathematically minded as they show why the denialist nonsense is nonsense and would have been binned by any real scientist if it had been reviewed properly.
“The very fact they dived straight into publishing non-science indicates that they are true believers, rather than in it for the con.”
This.
There is a difference between the vile and the addled.
Best,
D
Until now, I’d thought it couldn’t get any better than this.
Or maybe that.
Perhaps a paper could be covered here that detailed the whys and wherefors that made the paper in question wrong (not just denialist incorrect).
Isn’t scorn due to stupidity a better resort than termination of a magazine.
[edit]
[Response: Cut the crap. The journal wasn’t axed because it published reprehensible anti-science (although it did). It was axed because 1) the publisher specifically stated they didn’t want it to be used as a firehose dispensing climate “skeptic” viewpoints, the editorial board agreed not to do that, then broke their word; 2) the review process was a bad joke.
Your comment, however, merits scorn due to its stupidity.]
Sadly it looks like a couple of genuine machine-vision pattern-recognition folks got sucked in and published genuine pattern recognition papers in this sad joke of a journal.
Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.
It’s a purely academic (boom-tish) point, but in Australia Pattern Recognition in Physics would not be recognised as a claimable journal for the Higher Education Research Data Collection or for the Excellence in Research for Australia initiative.
Picking UoS’s site for no particular reason other than it’s clearly formatted to make the point, PRP has no listing on the ARC’s ERA journal list, in Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge Master Journal list, or in Ulrich’s database. Further, it fails the test for independent peer review:
In any Australian publication verification process papers from this journal would have been given short shrift had they been claimed for HERDC or ERA.
It astonishes me (no, not really) that the PRP nepotuers and their allies imagine that this journal somehow had scientific credibility.
There are none so blind…
For those of great patuence, I offer this.
There, you can find:
a) a 76-page PDF of an hour’s talk, which people might flip through.
See especially p.62 on Rhodes Fairbridge, Landscheidt, and also Wilson (same I./R.G. WIlson as in PRiP.), of:
Wilson I. R. G., B. D. Carter, and I. A. Waite (2008), Does a spin-orbit coupling between the sun and the jovian planets govern the solar cycle?, Pub. of the Astr. Soc. of Astralia 25, 85-93.
It’s abstract includes:
‘However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling.’
This might hint at tamino’s term mathturbation, or maybe not. Sometimes real patterns are found and the physics comes later, so maybe there’s a solid explanation by now.
The notion of Mozart hiding the decrescendo made me laugh on a very difficult day.
“maybe there’s a solid explanation by now.” and maybe not :-)
Tallbloke and Nicola Scafetta are running around with the “please read the paper and refute it if you can, and if not it stands” mantra.
However, outside this narrow field of climastrology is a long queue of papers that need refuting first, such as An Empirical Study of Some Astrological Factors in
Relation to Dog Behaviour Differences by Statistical Analysis and Compared with Human Characteristics.(2007), as well as many others found at JSE., one of which, by David Deming, was “The Hum: An Anomalous Sound Heard Around the World”, eerily reminiscent of Tallbloke’s “The Hum: log-normal distribution and planetary–solar resonance”.
(Deming of course, is famed for the “have to get rid of MWP” pseudo-quote in from another JSE article, repeated often by McIntyre, Lindzen, Montford and many others.
John, bearing in mind you’re a hero of mine, I also love your occasional typos, and your indifference to them in the casual social media.
However, I think you coined a great new term just now for the experience of reading/watching some of Scafetta- patuence-
The patience needed to deal with continued flatulence.
Maybe it will be sticky.
WUWT- great patuence needed!
Hans Jelbring who wrote two papers is an old PhD student of Mörner, one of the earlier “dragonslayers” who think the entire greenhouse effect is a myth and the warming being just due to atmospheric pressure.
Thomas: do you have a link for that?
It certainly makes sense, given that Jelbring got his PhD via Morner’s entity @ Stockholm.:
John, no I’m afraid I don’t have any online reference. The library entry for his thesis only states the opponent, not the advisor. I studied for a while at Stockholm University where Jelbring graduated and even read his thesis (which fortunately didn’t take long). He even boasted “It reminds me of how the University of Stockholm wanted to disqualify my thesis 2 months after my desertation” on the climatesceptics mail list.
Here is the paper for those interested:
Jelbring, Hans, The Greenhouse Effect as a Function of Atmospheric Mass, Energy & Environment, Vol. 14, 2003
Hi I am writing to you on behalf on the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum, we are conducting a survey of those interesting in the climate debate which should be of interest to all involved.
The main focus is on the education and work experience of participants, but it will also assess employment and social factors for their relationship with views on climate.
We would be very grateful if you would take the time to complete the survey. The responses are confidential.
The url is: http://scef.org.uk/survey/index.php/868721/lang/en.
regards,
Mike Haseler
‘Nuff said about the purpose of that survey.
Poltsi
Thanks Poltsi, I missed that
Remember, Wegman’s expertise: data mining.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sam.11151/abstract
Special issue of statistical analysis and data mining
Edward J. Wegman Special Issue Editor
Article first published online: 24 MAY 2012
DOI: 10.1002/sam.11151
Wanta bet he’s helping the national security apparatus find what they expect to find in all that phone data they’ve collected about everyone?
“Finding Nemo”
— by Horatio Algeranon
The CO2 from smokestack?
That’s hard, because it’s tiny
But needle in a haystack?
A cinch because its shiny
Any questions?
Of course the denialisti howl “Censorship!!11!”
realfacepalm:
Yes, and in that tread, we hear from Tallbloke that Lord Monckton has offered assistance.
As usual, parananoia gets generated:
‘Gail Combs says:
January 21, 2014 at 2:00 am
I wonder if the whole thing was a set-up, a trap? (comment from my husband)’
Copernicus had to be really tricky to set this up to trap Morner and friends.
Dave123: thanks for kind words, sometimes the fingers have life of their own.
When driving in the DC area, I find that my middle finger in particular appears to operate of its own volition.
Yes, well that may be, but I wouldn’t misunderestimate Copernicus.
He did set a trap that caught even Galileo, after all.
Thomas, I did find more supporting evidence later on of close association, thanks for the hint.
See comment @ ATTP, which matches what you recall..
As best as I can tell, Jelbring got PhD ~1999 in Morner’s lab @ the university, which was shut down ~2005 when Morner retired, but recreated ~2010 as an independent research entity, whose membership includes Jelbring and lists PhDs under Education. I think this is a picture of this entity, a lovely office in the woods near Swedish shore not too far North of Copenhagen, which at least looks more pleasant than the barnlike building that houses OISM.
From the text at JMs third link:
“After the closing-down of the unit at Stockholm University Prof- Emeritus Nils-Axel Mörner has opened an independent research institution on Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, in Torekov in South Sweden (see building on photo). It was inaugurated in the summer 2010. Work goes on as before but now with zero founding.”
rather unfortunate spelling mistake at the end there! ;o)
“Maximum Impact (on-a) Journal”….
– by Horatio Algeranon…
Mörner is in mörnering...Shifting on his Axel....The pattern of his solar fling….
Has led to impact maxima…