Scientists are well educated, some say overeducated, and would be expected to object loudly to censorship. They generally do just that when political matters are involved, or when someone wants to ban a book. But when it comes to scientific matters, scientists censor each other's work all the time. This censorship hits those in the minority particularly hard, such as greenhouse-effect nonbelievers. The world of scientific publishing is a little weird and lends itself to easy manipulation by those holding the majority view.

       Most people probably think that the person writing a scientific article gets paid for the article. That is the first assumption scientific publishing sets on its head. The scientists, or their institutions, have to pay a few hundred dollars for each page published in most American scientific journals. The government funds most of the published research. This means the government pays most of the bills for scientific publishing.

       Why are scientists and institutions willing to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to have an article published? This is the stuff that confers prestige. There is the saying that having a Ph.D. requires one to publish or perish. Scientists build reputations on the length of their publication lists. Universities demand that professors publish widely before giving them job tenure. Universities also crave the prestige that comes when their professors publish articles.

       Editors of scientific journals have little to say about what appears in the pages of their journals. Not-for-profit scientific societies publish most of the journals. The editor is usually a scientist who takes the unpaid, part-time editor's position for the prestige it offers. The scientific society publishing the journal lays down rules on what criteria articles must satisfy before the journal publishes them. Just because a scientist is a member of the society does not mean that he can publish in the society's journal.