We plan in the future to explore two types of re-annotations on the figure ranking: first, we will ask a co-author of a paper to re-annotate the paper; secondly, we may ask biologists who are not the author of the paper for the re-annotation.
May 2 OK, I re-read the paper and also Romm's comment.
This paper currently has a crappy Altmetrics score, but we all could make it less crappy by re-tweeting the paper -- and yes, by mentioning it here on The Grauniad.
Here's one last comment from me, which represents a bit of further reflection after re-reading the paper: Press coverage that described this as forecasting a decade of "global cooling" was clearly off the mark, since the global means (as you point out in one of your clarifications) are flat and then rise.
Technically, of course, this most likely isn't a bubble in the classic sense: plenty of the bidders are probably bidding because they actually want to own a copy of an Obama Wins! newspaper, rather than bidding in the expectation that they'll be able to re-sell the paper for a profit down the road.
Once it has the redone data in hand, likely by next month, the journal will re-evaluate the paper.
After all, the majority of people re-posting the paper's stories seem to believe that they are absolutely, 100percenttrueue.
Under the classroom rules, she could re-write the paper and resubmit it, basically copying the teacher's red edits in her own handwriting to achieve a good grade.
(My high school English teacher, Michael Mulligan, still publicly teases me for re-writing the paper I wrote on the Lord of the Flies a half dozen times, a blatant grade-grubber trying desperately to improve the B+ he originally gave me).
All authors contributed to drafting and re-drafting the paper.
