Jonathan Jones and Ruth Dixon have published (see Ruth’s blog here) a comment in Psychological Science on conspiracy theorist Stephan Lewandowsky’s Hoax article, much discussed at CA at the time. Although their statistical points are incontrovertible and clearly expressed, it took considerable persistence – see timeline here. Their first and longer original article was submitted to a different journal, but rejected as being of insufficient interest to readers of that journal. The reviewers were sympathetic but more or less referred them back to Psychological Science, the journal which had published Hoax. Psychological Science has strict word limits on a comment (1000 words) and these word limits are counter-productive when an article is so thoroughly bogus as Lewandowsky et al 2012. Lewandowsky was one of the reviewers for Psychological Science and opposed publication. However, unlike Steig in respect of O’Donnell et al 2011, Lewandowsky was identified to the authors as a reviewer, permitting Jones and Dixon to respond to his review comments knowing of the reviewer’s conflict of interest. Editor Eric Eich accepted the comment, as well as Lewandowsky’s response (response paywalled.) Lewandowsky has a blog reaction here, in which Lewandowsky hypocritically compliments the article as a scientific response in peer reviewed literature, without disclosing that he had opposed its publication.
There are numerous other defects with the Lewandowsky article that are not covered in their comment. One can only do so much with 1000 words and Jonathan and Ruth have unsurprisingly done an excellent job. :
Source