Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper

[JHB]

The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.
***
It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.

Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.
***
They also commented on the fact that the paper was not published in a journal that routinely deals with climate change. Remote Sensing's core topic is methods for monitoring aspects of the Earth from space. Publishing in "off-topic" journals is generally frowned on in scientific circles, partly because editors may lack the specialist knowledge and contacts needed to run a thorough peer review process. In essence, Dr Wagner, a professor of remote sensing at Vienna University of Technology, is blaming himself for this failing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

From the resignation editorial itself:

Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613
Wolfgang Wagner
Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell <1> that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
***
In science, diversity and controversy are
essential to progress and therefore it is important that different opinions are heard and openly
discussed. Therefore editors should take special care that minority views are not suppressed, meaning
that it certainly would not be correct to reject all controversial papers already during the review
process. If a paper presents interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be
published and responded to in the open literature. This was my initial response after having become
aware of this particular case. So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have
I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have
already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. <7>), a fact which
was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.
In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a
minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it
essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review
process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly
accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to
make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

(cross-posted in GD)