claim: The Independent Climate Change Email Review investigated the CRU scientists' actions relating to 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: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: SUPPORTS 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
evidences.evidence_id: Climatic Research Unit email controversy:85
evidences.article: Climatic Research Unit email controversy
evidences.evidence: On 22 March 2010 the university announced the composition of an independent Science Assessment Panel to reassess key CRU papers that have already been peer-reviewed and published in journals.
evidences.votes: SUPPORTS NOT_ENOUGH_INFO
evidences.evidence_id: Soon and Baliunas controversy:142
evidences.article: Soon and Baliunas controversy
evidences.evidence: The Independent Climate Change Email Review, an independent review funded by the University of East Anglia and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, examined allegations that the emails showed attempts to undermine normal procedures of publication.
evidences.votes: SUPPORTS NOT_ENOUGH_INFO