Here's the blog post to launch Paul's peer review visualisation:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Interactive-History-of-Climate-Science.html

Feedback welcome. It's not too late to make changes. I thought I might ask Naomi Oreskes to have a look, see if she has any suggestions before we launch.

"The visualisation begins with the slider parked in 1824 when Joseph Fourier first published"

"As well as build the number of papers, we'd like to experiment with different ways of displaying the papers. As well as the visualisation..." [redundant, "As well as" - "In addition to," perhaps]

Have skimmed it quickly so far, and have a couple comments:

- I like the paragraphs you've written for each section - perhaps, since there is a section of its own, not mentioning ways people can help within the "How we built the database" section.

- I'm a bit iffy on saying outright that the papers are categorized based on how they relate to skeptic arguments ("arguments" too, not myths, I would recommend), since I think there has been some debate as to disagreeing arguments, supporting arguments perhaps implicitly but explicitly "taking a side," so on.  I think a reference to the post Ari has started would be more appropriate, so we can go into this in more detail and address all of these screwballs that we're trying to form a set of rules around.

In light of that too, that post itself should be completed rapidly so as to be published at the same time, I suppose.

- In the "How you can help us" section, put the information about adding papers first.

I'll give it a more thorough read through when I get some more time, it looks good though.

You could use method development papers as an example of neutral papers. Method development papers are published a lot, so it is one of the prime examples of neutral papers.

Considering we're a bit overdo on the release anyways, and Ari's post on the complications with categorizing is pretty much ready to go as well.  Any more discussion here?

Looks good to me.  It would make sense to follow this one up with Ari's post.  And I just published Glen's Part 1A, which he wants to keep close to 1B.  So maybe we could do Glenn's Part 1B tomorrow, then this one and Ari's the following day or two?

Ditto on the thumbs up. It may have been discussed (I haven't been paying attention) but how do we prevent dufuses from clogging the database up with rubbish? It already needs a big sort out as it is.

You could have users only submit links, have them "await moderation," and limit it to only 10 (whatever would be preferable) a day, maybe.

It will certainly be a problem, esp. if PopTech comes back.

But no, I don't think this has really been discussed.

I've done some tweaks to the blog post and also Paul has helped improve the code on the visualisation so that clicking the navigation links don't cause the page to reload. So Dana, you're free to publish this tomorrow morning if you like.

I'm going to reinstate Poptech's account now and send him an email. Brace for impact and batton down the hatches!

Note - I emailed Naomi Oreskes about this for feedback but didn't hear back (she's also travelling at the moment, I believe).