Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article"

Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article" edit

Editors involved in this dispute

Obsidi (talk · contribs) – filing party
Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)
MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)
dave souza (talk · contribs)
Denis.g.rancourt (talk · contribs)
Markbassett (talk · contribs)
Banedon (talk · contribs)
Yopienso (talk · contribs)
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#E.26E_for_fulfilling_the_.22peer-reviewed_article_in_the_broad_field_of_natural_sciences.22_requirement

Issues to be mediated edit

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article"

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation edit

Agree. Obsidi (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This request was worded in a duplicitous manner: First, no-one has contested whether the journal nominally engages in the peer-review process. Second, a consensus has already been established that the peer-review process of this journal cannot be accepted at face value, due to published statements by the editor and published criticisms of the 'science' contained therein. Third, these doubts extend only to the subject of climate change science. So the mediation of this question is pointless, except as a deceptive debate tactic, something which has become quite prominent at that page. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 01:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Pants - Could you provide a link to the alleged "consensus has already been established that the peer-review process of this journal cannot be accepted at face value"? You would have WP editors accept that the impugned article published in E&E was not sufficiently peer reviewed, in a total absence of information about the said impugned article, while the journal has a peer review policy. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If you can't puzzle out that it's in the only thread on the only talk page on which this has been discussed, then I can't help ya. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 02:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The request omits the qualifier "in the natural sciences" and hence does not adequately address the dispute. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz:@Banedon:I was hoping that the "natural sciences" qualifier could be resolved without mediation given it appeared there wasn't a whole lot of disagreement. Still if it is something you wish to include in mediation, just add it above under "additional issues (added by other parties)" I have no problems discussing that too if you wish. -Obsidi (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent - I feel like this is a poor question to mediate on, since as Stephan Schulz said there's a second component to the dispute. A better question would be something like "does this article in E&E meet the criteria for including ___ in the list". I am still skeptical any kind of productive result can be reached: it's an either/or question and neither side are likely to change their minds. A better way to settle the dispute then is via RfC. Nonetheless if the mediation does go ahead I am happy to participate. Banedon (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - I haven't commented in talk thread but I have been following it. In broadstrokes, formal mediation can sometimes restore two-way communication when two-way communication is broken. Seems to me they are communicating reasonably well, the parties just disagree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to attend the mediation. YoPienso (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw and agree not to discuss the quality of E&Es peer-review process while this mediation is ongoing. YoPienso (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I decline to participate -- I lack understanding of what the mediation is about, so could not say I'm part or not part of that unknown and could not say this mediation will or will not address anything I'm writing about here. At that TALK section I said "Is there an article context or question or some kind of point to this ?" and the poster did not respond. The journal could be talked about, but without any support shown or any intended content use stated, it just looks like a casual remark and I don't see the point of having the argument. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - premature, the mediation guide WP:RFM/G#PRIOR states "we would expect to see an unsuccessful dispute resolution noticeboard thread or a requests for comment that failed to resolve the dispute." These steps haven't occurred, the talk page discussion is still in progress. Also, the statement seems malformed: there's good evidence that some E&E papers lacked peer review, so there can be no universal statement that E&E papers should be considered peer reviewed. . . . dave souza, talk 06:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Chairperson's note to all listed parties: In light of the number of listed parties, I'd like to try to prevent confusion and unnecessary discussion by making some things clear before everyone starts weighing in.

First, if you have been listed as a party but do not care to participate in the mediation and you agree not to edit the articles, or continue discussion at the article talk page, on the matter in dispute you may say so rather than accepting or rejecting and your withdrawal will reduce the party count.
Second, in determining whether prerequisite to mediation #5 has been met conditional or ambiguous "accepts" will almost always be counted as rejects unless the condition is something which is always done in mediation anyway. If the reason for conditioning your "accept" is to contest the way the issue to be mediated is stated by the listing party or to insure that your additional issue is considered, bear in mind that if the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator accepts the case that the mediator will negotiate the exact issues to be mediated with the parties; if you are not satisfied with the outcome of that process you may withdraw from or reject the mediation at that time. Based on the party count at this time, we will need at least 5 accepts before the case can be accepted.
Third, with this many people involved, even if the minimum number of "accepts" is met if many fail to either accept or reject acceptance it is possible for the case to be accepted but the mediator determine that there aren't enough parties or aren't enough necessary parties for the mediation to succeed (see the next subsection) and close it.
Fourth, please understand what mediation can do. It will not hear the arguments and make a judgment as to what is correct. What it will do is to attempt to provide a moderated and guided environment where discussion can continue with a view to reaching consensus. While mediators work diligently towards coming to a negative or positive consensus, they also realize that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result under Wikipedia's wiki concept. In general regarding the concept of mediation, see the article on Mediation.
Fifth, realize that mediations typically take weeks and sometimes months to complete.
Sixth, please do not engage in discussion or reply to other users on this acceptance page. Either just accept or reject (or withdraw, see above) and, if you care to do so, add additional issues in the appropriate section above. Be aware that the privilege of mediation (i.e. that statements and discussions made during mediation cannot ordinarily be used as evidence for any behavioral complaint, though there are exceptions) does not apply until a case has been accepted for mediation and a mediator opens the case.

I'd strongly recommend that all parties read the Mediation Committee policy before deciding to accept, reject, or withdraw. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]