In this part he wants to be able to control the publication of papers critical of his position. That is what a peer-reviewer does.
Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation). source
Buried in an email Jan 21, 2005 was an email to Mann which gave the editor's reasons for not including Mann as part of the review team. This was apparently from Malcolm Hughes to Mike Mann.
At 08:47 PM 1/20/2005, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> Mike - I found this sentence in the reply from the GRL
>> Editor-in-Chief to be
>> "As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but rather as
>> a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to
>> look it over."here
This would be normal procedure, but given the penchant for dissent suppression that these guys engaged in, one is not surprised to see Mann want to stop any criticism of his work.
This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).
The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.
The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that does get through. This is from this site
Amazingly he doesn't see that he is trying to abuse the peer review process himself by denying opposite opinions and criticisms of his own work. He also wants to control who deFreitas choses to use. How totalitarian of him.
And this allegedly from Treavor Davies shows again that they are merely interested in being sure that no 'bad science' defined as anything critical of them gets published, but then using that against any critic.
From: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)"
To: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)"
Subject: RE: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:33:16 +0100
Cc: "Summers Brian Mr (REG)"
WE should make a statement along these lines. We should also stress that McIntyres analysis has not been peer-reviewed (& we need to explain what this means - for the man-in-the street).
Given the fact that this campaign is clearly not going to die down & we now have a silly attempt to escalate it locally (dragging Norfolk's reputation thro the mud), I have revised my view & feel we do need to pursue the spectator more vigorously. To me, it seems straightforward - Keith has been accused of fraud on an official Spectator website - that is (wharever the legal word is).
Peer review has become a cudgel to be used on opponents in all areas of science. Members of one point of view populate the review panels and reject anything that disagrees with them. Then the use the lack of publications by critics in peer reviewed journals as a reason no one should listen to them. This is not science but politics.