Chronicle of Higher Education interview with Reed Timmer

[Jason Foster]

...and I've yet to see him say that meteorologists who chase but don't publish are "lesser" people. But you can't claim to improve warning lead times, or decrease FARs, or have a better way to automatically detect a TVS through a new algorithm if you keep all the info to yourself. If you come up with the best idea ever, guaranteed to detect 100% of all tornadoes with no false alarms but don't tell anyone about it -- then what good is it? If you don't put it through peer review, then maybe you just stumbled on a coincidence [sort of like the Washington Redskins home record predicting presidential outcomes.]

That shouldn't be considered "elitism." That's just the scientific method.

The Peer review part of science is Effing Bull. It has nothing to do with the way another person "feels!" it's relevant...ARGGGG. WTF is it with these "scientists". It's about the data!!!! Yes...you need to back up your claim, but it's the integrity of the science, math, process itself. Professional scientists are full of people more interested in protecting their grants and prestige than accept they were wrong and THAT is the true nature of "Peer Review" in today's world.

In many ways...I don't blame Reed...if this "peer review" is at all part of his reasoning for not sharing/publishing anything yet. I mean hell...perhaps also doesn't want these "peers" stealing his ideas either. IDK.

 

[Logan Karsten]

While I don't doubt that you see instances of people trying to protect their own interest, for the most part, the peer review process is needed in one way or another. If we didn't have a peer review process, then anyone could post anything they wanted. This serves as a check to make sure the science being published is sound. I personally don't know anyone in meteorology that has had trouble getting their work published. They may have hit snags with reviewers, but they were able to get their work published eventually. If Reed doesn't like the peer review process, well, that's just too bad. That's the way it's been done for a long time and some sort of check is needed for people trying to publish research.

 

[Matt Hunt]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most scientists spend years and years and years on research before they come up with some kind of breakthrough? Did it ever cross anyone's mind that the data he has collected in... what, 2 years?... may not show anything significant, or anything that we didn't already know? Everyone here acts like he should have 10 papers published after 2 years and maybe half a dozen tornadoes he's actually gotten inside.

 

[Logan Karsten]

Research doesn't come in chunks divided by breakthroughs. It's an evolving process with several scientists trying to pursue several different hypothesis using different tools available.

As far as two years not being enough, rdale already posted a link with numerous published articles that came out of Vortex II. So yes, two years can be more than enough time to produce results.

 

[rdale]

The Peer review part of science is Effing Bull.

Well, that's one way to put it. Thankfully, no matter how offensive that is, it's the way research is done. I don't see why that's confusing, or what's so scary about it. If you can't back up your claims with data that your peers can validate, then your claims are worthless.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most scientists spend years and years and years on research before they come up with some kind of breakthrough?

I suppose, but these scientists aren't going on a national TV show and claiming that the reason they are making the show is to publish research on improving the warning process.

 

[Dean Baron]

Research doesn't come in chunks divided by breakthroughs. It's an evolving process with several scientists trying to pursue several different hypothesis using different tools available.

As far as two years not being enough, rdale already posted a link with numerous published articles that came out of Vortex II. So yes, two years can be more than enough time to produce results.

To be fair, V2 had how many more vehicles collecting data than Reed?

 

[Jason Foster]

To be fair, V2 had how many more vehicles collecting data than Reed?

AND the entire 1995 project as well to which many things may have been based originally. However, I don't specifically know this for sure. Someone else can probably speak more about it than I.

Well, that's one way to put it. Thankfully, no matter how offensive that is, it's the way research is done. I don't see why that's confusing, or what's so scary about it. If you can't back up your claims with data that your peers can validate, then your claims are worthless.

It's the way it's done! Boy....that's a weak argument. Every evil in this world can claim the same argument. See...it's also been the case that peer reviews have been the SOURCE of much DELAY in scientific advancement, preventing the wider acceptance.

It is not confusing, and not scary at all. never said it was! I said it was STUPID the way it's done nowadays. I guess I'm the only one here that has balls enough to say it's BS. I'm not against folks discussing, reviewing, commenting, but the ideas that others have to validate through OPINION. It's not PEERS that have to validate it....it simply is whether the data is true or not.

See...the thing with new ideas is that YOUR PEERS either got it wrong or don't understand. Meteorology might get it better than many other areas of science (the worst being the biomedical sector), but it's not immune. We've seen this condescending attitude from others. Josh Wurman comes to mind.

But I understand to a degree your perspective Rob, since you seem to have some rooting in this process. So, I don't expect you (or others) tied closely to established system to speaking against it. God forbid one of your PEERS read about a descension mindset before reviewing one of your papers. We all know if you speak out...you'll be isolated and alienated.

 

[Logan Karsten]

Jason,

1.) Since you are so opposed to the process that currently takes place, what do you propose takes its place?

2.) Have you ever been part of the process of submitting a science article to be published in a peer reviewed science journal?

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Jason, based on your posts, it appears you have an awful lot of experience dealing with the peer review process, in particular, the meteorology review process. I'm curious to hear your first hand accounts as to the atrocities that the peer review process has committed against you. If you don't have any first hand experience than I think you should be a little more careful with how unabashedly you attack something you have not experienced yourself. If you do have experience, then, again, I'm interested in knowing what has happened to shape your opinion in such a negative manner.

I can speak as someone who has published formally, has been rejected formally, is in the process of attempting to publish again, and a reviewer. Peer-review is a lot like democracy, it sucks, until you consider the alternatives. By no means am I a peer-review process apologist, but I do firmly believe that there must be some barrier to entry -- a bar to surpass, if you will -- regarding getting things accepted into the scientific literature. Note, this is the "scientific literature". Nothing prevents someone from holding on to their own beliefs, and sharing their results with others. However, if you want to get things accepted into the scientific record, scientists must have a say. Otherwise we end up rehashing the same "discoveries" and "inaccuracies" over and over again, making the new and really important discoveries harder to identify because the signal-to-noise ratio becomes extremely low.

Here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say that there was a website aimed at the chasing community. Initially the website filled a small niche and thus the barrier to entry was a bit low, and only the most ardent of chasers were active on the website. After all, why would non-chasers want to spend their time discussing what light bar to put on their roof? However, as the popularity of chasing increased, the number of people visiting this website increased as well. Soon, the website was overrun with people who had no experience chasing and the forums were full of NWS product reposts, post asking where to go, and posts perpetuating meteorological inaccuracies. It wouldn't be long before people start demanding stricter membership requirements, such as writing a membership essay that is read by those in charge of membership to help restore the signal-to-noise ratio to earlier times. Is it the most ideal solution? Of course not, but it's a way to prevent self-proclaimed chasers who have never chased from becoming labeled as a "chasing expert". How is that different from scientists reviewing the work of other scientists to protect the integrity of all scientists? I find it ironic that some of the most ardent opponents of the peer review process are also those who demand a stricter requirement for membership on Stormtrack.

No one (at least in meteorology that I'm aware of) requires a meteorology degree when publishing. If the non-degreed scientists want to publish their research, they are more than welcome to. The catch is, they are held to the same standards as degreed scientists. If, after scrutiny, then their work holds up, it should pass through the review process. Occasionally bad things do get published and good things get withheld. And then there are the cases like my rejection where a reviewer takes umbrage with a previous paper and decides to take it out on the paper before him. We all have our horror stories; we all think it can be better.

As is the case in most small scientific fields, or which meteorology is one of them, it isn't too hard to figure out who reviews your submissions. It behooves reviewers to be professional in their reviews of colleagues, because there is a good chance that he or she will be reviewing one of your publications. This is why in most scientific publications, reviewers must justify their reviews to an editor. It is then the editor's decision to accept or reject the paper -- not the reviewer's. Furthermore, most articles are reviewed by a minimum of 2 scientists, and most often it is at least 3. Again, is this the best scenario? No. However, it's better than just letting anything be accepted.

Let me also clear up another thing. As of earlier this year, Reed's PhD dissertation was not related to tornadoes nor any of the data he might be collecting. In fact, unless it has been recently changed, it has nothing to do with severe weather (at least in the United States).

 

[rdale]

Thanks for the clarification Patrick.

Gary - what is good about SC encouraging people with no training driving into a tornado with a camera to make videos like Reed?

 

[Logan Karsten]

I would also say that Reed is having a potentially negative effect on high school students looking to go into meteorology. I can't tell you how many times I have done prospective student tours for meteorology, where the prospective student has this idea that he/she can get a degree in meteorology and chase all the time for a living like Reed. When in fact, that's next to impossible. It's good to have a passion for severe weather that drives your interest in pursuing a degree in meteorology. Hell, that's what got me hooked on the science when I was a kid. I never planned on storm chasing for my career because I knew you can't do that. However, some people have this misconception that you can make a full time career out of storm chasing, which is extremely difficult, or you just have to be very lucky.

Also, thanks to Patrick also for giving that very insightful discussion on the peer review process.

 

[William Monfredo]

This entertaining show and person use an old, if not out-dated mantra: "The things we do increase lead-times & save lives." We CAN thank Doppler radar for a leap in lead times (& substantial false alarms, too). But, now gains will come very slowly, and one needs to ask, what will an extra minute or two allow? To check on horses or a truck, to grab a video camera, to go out on the porch during the storm?

The "saving of lives" is a very personal scenario including situational awareness and responsibility, and a myriad of social & psychological variables, including "heuristics," the way we see & filter the world during tornado watches and warnings. The old paradigm, which is actually "building a data set," is more likely to result in the purchase of a new home than the saving of a life. :>)

 

[joel ewing]

Well, I'm not qualified to speak to all the technical issues, but I'm not sure why chasers would be averse to sharing basic meteorological data with the scientific community.

I chase only for my personal enjoyment. That's the way I've done it for 25 years. I don't want to have to be married into a union with the so-called scientific community. It's the scientific community that's now calling guys like me the scourge of the chasing scenario.
And with regards to Reed's interview, did you read the one response from the "trained spotter of 15 years" from Kansas that calls in the license plates of amateur chasers to law inforcement....what a little Hitler he's become. They're out there, guys.

 

[rdale]

I chase only for my personal enjoyment. That's the way I've done it for 25 years. I don't want to have to be married into a union with the so-called scientific community.

So if you were collecting data on your rooftop, and given a free path to send that data to a database, you would refuse since scientists would be able to get your data?

 

[joel ewing]

That's an interesting perspective... Since chasing has been growing non-stop since Twister, and SC certainly has helped the push, what might the "next big thing" be to replace it?

Can you say "Chinchillas"?