claim: The Review concluded that CRU's actions were normal and did not threaten the integrity of peer review.
evidences.evidence_id: Climatic Research Unit email controversy:135
evidences.article: Climatic Research Unit email controversy
evidences.evidence: Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasised that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigour of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists.
evidences.votes: SUPPORTS SUPPORTS
evidences.evidence_id: Climatic Research Unit email controversy:174
evidences.article: Climatic Research Unit email controversy
evidences.evidence: It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods.
evidences.votes: SUPPORTS SUPPORTS
evidences.evidence_id: Climatic Research Unit email controversy:192
evidences.article: Climatic Research Unit email controversy
evidences.evidence: Describing its report as "hugely positive", he stated that "it is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice."
evidences.votes: SUPPORTS SUPPORTS
evidences.evidence_id: Climatic Research Unit email controversy:239
evidences.article: Climatic Research Unit email controversy
evidences.evidence: The report, issued on 18 February 2011, cleared the researchers and "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures".
evidences.votes: REFUTES SUPPORTS
evidences.evidence_id: Climatic Research Unit email controversy:82
evidences.article: Climatic Research Unit email controversy
evidences.evidence: The review would also scrutinise the CRU's policies and practices for "acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review, and disseminating data and research findings" and "their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice".
evidences.votes: SUPPORTS SUPPORTS