In this article, Harry Crane argues that scientists may be gaming the research publication business to increase the likelihood of manuscript acceptance (I came across it from a [recent Twitter thread](https://twitter.com/otrasenda_AC/status/1312222211902767104) of a couple days ago)

https://researchers.one/articles/in-peer-review-we-dont-trust-how-peer-reviews-filtering-poses-a-systemic-risk-to-science/5f52699b36a3e45f17ae7d74

> "From this point of view, the current peer review process is about as impure and unscientific as could be, the intellectual equivalent of the selfie-stick in today’s navel-gazing academic culture [8]. Journals claim to make decisions on quality-based criteria but, in the end, almost every article is published in a “peer-reviewed journal,” with the only difference being the impact factor, prestige, and other career-oriented metrics that go a long way in determining the course of an individual scientist’s career but do little for the advancement of science. What we have is an embodiment of Goodhart’s law [9] from economics, *When the measure becomes the target, it ceases to be a good measure*. Indeed, when ‘publishing in peer reviewed journals’ became the bar for academic success, career-oriented researchers devised strategies to succeed within that system, and so it ceased to be a good metric for quality scholarship."

Perhaps one way [Goodhart's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law) of game theory is being applied in non-AGW climate science (imo AGW is solid) is that the research papers that point to chaotic mechanisms are more acceptable according to the consensus lines than those papers that address non-chaotic mechanisms. So the premise is that more authors will toe that line and reinforce the notion that natural climate change (e.g. El Nino) is chaotic. And furthermore, since chaotic mechanisms are thought to be largely intractable for prediction, all that these papers will accomplish is lead everyone down a scientific dead-end.

So perhaps that is why Springer Nature is publishing Nature Scientific Reports as an alternative publishing path. There have been some stinker articles that have come out of this but they are being handled by http://PubPeer.com effectively and at least one climate science article has been retracted. But there have also been several very interesting climate science articles published in Scientific Reports that are [bucking the tide](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49678-w) of consensus.

The Wikipedia entry for Goodhart's Law is interesting as well:
>"Other academics had similar insights during this time period. Jerome Ravetz's 1971 book Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems[8] also predates Goodhart, though it does not formulate the same law. He discusses how systems in general can be gamed, focuses on cases where the goals of a task are complex, sophisticated, or subtle. In such cases, the persons possessing the skills to execute the tasks properly are instead able to achieve their own goals to the detriment of the assigned tasks. When the goals are instantiated as metrics, this could be seen as equivalent to Goodhart and Campbell's claim."

The premise is that the model of scientific publishing can be gamed and the result that we want -- the revolutionary insight and ideas -- may be inadvertently squashed in the process. So besides Scientific Reports, there are these outlets as well:

from EGU, the journal ESD Ideas: https://www.earth-system-dynamics.net/about/news_and_press/2018-04-27_esd-launches-new-manuscript-type-esd-ideas.html

from APS, the journal Physical Review Research: https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/updates/prresearch.cfm