When you think you’ve hit rock bottom …

Think again.

Because maybe the now-defunct “Journal” Pattern Recognition in Physics hasn’t hit rock bottom … yet.

According to WUWT, the journal which was shut down because, according to the publisher, it engaged in scientific malpractice, might be revived by none other than: Christopher Monckton.

I think Christopher Monckton and Nils-Axel Mörner are perfect for each other.

Advertisements

21 responses to “When you think you’ve hit rock bottom …

  1. Hmmm, some of the folks at Watts’ might have to rethink their previous support of the Viscount criticisms of the quality of the science presented in the Pattern Recognition in Physics journal.

  2. I think this is a truly wonderful development, and the mockup cover terrific, especially as it highlights Monckton’s logo, which still rather resembles that of the House of Lords.

    If this journal actually happens by some miracle, perhaps it can displace E&E and JSE, although the latter has published some papers on motion of planets, such as for dog astrology, as well as Global Warming, the Politicization of Science,
    and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear,
    the original source of the beloved pseudoquote about getting rid of the MWP.

  3. Dan J. Andrews

    Maybe they did hit rock bottom–now they’re just digging furiously.

  4. uknowispeaksense

    Reblogged this on uknowispeaksense and commented:
    The monkeys are running the zoo. Perhaps crybaby Watts will be chief reviewer.

  5. I really don’t know what Monckton’s game is. Watt’s has just enough sense, or take advice from other that do, to dissociate themselves from the nonsense in PRP. In contrast, Monckton seeks to associate with the stupidity that will make it even move obvious how clueless he is. I presume he is grandstanding and doesn’t actually intend to put his money and time on the table to publish outrageous fantasies.

    • Horatio Algeranon

      “I presume he is grandstanding and doesn’t actually intend to put his money and time on the table to publish outrageous fantasies.”

      Isn’t that like presuming the Pope isn’t Catholic?

      What has Monckton “published” that was not an outrageous fantasy?

  6. The mind boggles. Didn’t Monckton publish his first (and only) peer reviewed paper last year? And now he wants his own journal?

  7. Horatio Algeranon

    If Monckton is going to be the editor/owner “Physics precognition in Patterns” would prolly be more apt.

  8. Does this mean that Watts and Monckton are no longer an item (as sweet talking Tamino moves in)?

    • I think Anthony’s considered where the butter is and has flipped his slice of bread:

      All I can say is that I hope the people that tried to publish in the first PRP journal (now closed) find a friendly home there. It will be interesting to watch it evolve and I wish them all the success they deserve.

  9. A great development – finally there will something to rival The Onion.

  10. Dikran Marsupial

    If Monckton thinks he will be able to publish the first issue of the new PRIP in March, he is showing that he knows nothing about scientific publishing. I have just had a paper accepted (not in print, just accepted) and it was submitted last March (many thanks to the reviewers and action editor, who all did an excellent job). I would be rather surprised if anything actually comes of this, and if it does, sadly I would not be at all surprise if it was a repeat of previous errors.

    • It takes time to do a proper review. It doesn’t take very long to collect a few pages of pseudoscience nonsense.

      A year from submit to publish sounds slow — what field? I’m used to it taking just a few months (except journals in CS, but those are just for tenure & promotions; the real publication is at a conference).

  11. If we’re proposing titles for his lordship’s project, I’d go for Pareidolia in Climate Studies.

  12. A year from submit to publish sounds slow — what field?

    Frustratingly, that’s not unusual in ecology. I’ve seen it not infrequently stretch to 18 months…

    I’m used to it taking just a few months (except journals in CS, but those are just for tenure & promotions; the real publication is at a conference).

    Heh, at our insttitution the heirarchy see it the other way around – for the upper academic levels conference publications are accepted as contribution to academic performance only to a point – beyond that journal papers are preferenced. In some disciplines though (the particularly ‘applied’ ones) it’s definitely true that the conference paper is the cutting edge.

    • In computer science, you hash out ideas in workshops and tech reports, you get rejected from a conference or two (3-month turnaround), and finally you get it through the review process and the paper is published. However, computer scientists have non-computer scientists on their tenure and promotion committees. If you’re up for tenure and you only have best-paper-in-conference awards to point to, the physicist on your committee will vote against you. So you half-assedly send things to journals, where the turnaround is measured in years. I gave up on one publication after three years without it having been sent out for review yet (!), whereas another got through decently fast, just over one year to get the reviews back, and another year until it appeared.

      If only we could get Monckton on board to review our papers, turnaround would be much snappier.

      [Response: My longest review ever (after 18 months I complained) was for a computer science journal.]

  13. If Christopher Monckton were to come out and say that everything he’s done over the years was part of an elaborate and long-running practical joke designed to demonstrate the gullibility of the so-called sceptics, it would explain everything perfectly.

  14. Nope, Monckton is a skilled practicioner of the long con

    And yet this stuff is as important to understanding the conservative ascendancy as are the internecine organizational and ideological struggles that make up its official history—if not, indeed, more so. The strategic alliance of snake-oil vendors and conservative true believers points up evidence of another successful long march, of tactics designed to corral fleeceable multitudes all in one place—and the formation of a cast of mind that makes it hard for either them or us to discern where the ideological con ended and the money con began.