2011-04-19 07:10:06Is Balling 2000, in Environmental Geosciences, peer reviewed?
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

PopTech has it in his list, and I went through the abstract and tried to trace it down in the actual journal itself before I added it into our archive.  Wiley has the abstract, but there is no listing of the article at the GSW website for that issue.

Would I classify this as an online article?

As a side note too, since I see there have been few views of the new thread I made in Disinformation Deniers, I would like to advertise it for anyone else interested in helping go through PopTech's list too, and also to say that any similar inquiries, be they from others or me, should probably go in that thread.  Just wanted to expand the message to other sub-forums.

2011-04-19 07:37:41
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Alex...  Try this and see what you think:  Go to the journal's website here.  The click on the button to the left that says "About the Journal" and see where it takes you.

Hint: You're in for a good laugh.

2011-04-19 08:07:26
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Yeah, I saw that too, but wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.  What is strange about this particular article is that it does not appear in EnviroGeo at ALL - a search for any article in the journal with that title turns up nothing.  Either they're specific about what qualifies as a peer-reviewed article (which would be to their credit, as E&E for example likes to be obscure about it) or Balling never published in EnviroGeo and Wiley has a false page.

As I alluded to before, something tells me that this was published in EnviroGeo, just that it was an opinion piece and not actually peer-reviewed.

This is also the third paper on PopTech's list (alphabetized) for which I could find a full copy that was not published by E&E.  The first was pro-agw, the second neutral.  Now this one isn't (unless someone can substantiate otherwise - I'm labeling it as an online article otherwise) even peer reviewed.  The other two non-E&E ones that I found abstracts for aren't obvious as being either pro-agw or skeptic, and my guess would be neutral.

What criteria was PopTech applying anyways?

2011-04-19 08:23:28
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

It is listed under "American Association for Petroleum Geologists Annual Meeting Abstracts" here at Wiley.  Does that qualify as peer reviewed?

Edit: That may be a silly question.  The entire volume after the first actual articles is filled with meeting abstracts - abstracts of speeches is my guess, speeches given at those meetings.  These would certainly NOT qualify as peer-review, assuming I am correct about what they are.

"Online article" may still apply.