bheer writes "The Register has a story about how at least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors. The Bishop Hill blog has an related piece describing how Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit doggedly chased scientific journals for the raw data, and how he had to work around obfuscated data to arrive at his conclusions. Perhaps science journals should learn a trick or two from the GPL, and require authors to publish science data in the most preferred format for analysing it?"
Link to Original Source