David Henderson on GWPF reports

Sep 9, 2012
Bishop Hill in GWPF

David Henderson sends this note on the review of GWPF reports.

One of your commentators has posed the question: ‘If short journal articles are peer reviewed, why not longer GWPF pieces?’

There is a misunderstanding here. The ’longer GWPF pieces’ have taken the form of reports: up to now, nine of these have so far been published, with Peter Lilley’s as the latest. All of them have been peer reviewed by members of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, of which I am chairman. The members of the Council are publicly listed. I have personally reviewed all nine reports, and commented in writing on all but one.

The GWPF procedure differs from that of a journal, in ways that in my opinion are advantageous.

• More potential reviewers are involved. Although no Council member is under any obligation to comment in any specific case, the number of substantive comments has typically exceeded what would normally become available through journal-style peer review.
• The process is not anonymous. The identity of the author is known to the potential reviewers, who make their comments in a personal capacity and may correspond directly with the author. It is up to the author to decide whom he thanks in the eventual published version: the list may go beyond Council members. 

In every case, authors have made revisions to their draft texts, sometimes substantial, in response to comments from Council members.

Final responsibility for publication rests with the Chairman of the Trustees, Lord Lawson, and the GWPF Director, Dr Benny Peiser.  In every case, publication is accompanied with the following formal statement:

“Views represented in the publications of the Global Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors, not those of the GWPF, its Trustees, its Academic Advisory Council members, or its Directors”.

Article originally appeared on (http://www.bishop-hill.net/).