In the news post titled “Scientist sets off a storm with denouncement of his personal climate research” on September 14, Patrick T. Brown claimed that editors and reviewers prioritize a “clean narrative” and overlook variables beyond climate modify when deciding upon which study to publish. On the other hand, this statement is incorrect. It was Mr. Brown himself, not Nature, who narrowed the concentrate of his study solely on climate modify, as clearly stated in the opening paragraph of the study paper we published. In addition, publicly readily available info accompanying the paper shows that other climate scientists for the duration of the evaluation approach acknowledged the exclusion of other variables. Mr. Brown himself argued against such as these variables in the final published version of the paper.
Science is committed to comprehending the intricacies of life and the globe by way of rigorous evaluation. Explaining complexities generally needs examining distinct elements, but this need to not be mistaken as a deliberate ignorance of relevant variables, as implied. Every single study paper concentrates on unique variables and information, all of which contribute to our understanding. On the other hand, they have to be viewed as element of an interconnected network of study that is constantly evolving, wherein the influence and significance of an person paper will fluctuate.
Nature’s publication history is filled with examples that deviate from the distinct narrative alleged by Mr. Brown. By examining these examples collectively, we can advance our understanding.
Editor in Chief of Nature