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 picking which analysis to publish. On the other hand, this statement is incorrect. It was Mr. Brown himself, not Nature, who narrowed the concentrate of his analysis solely on climate modify, as clearly stated in the opening paragraph of the analysis paper we published. Furthermore, publicly accessible info accompanying the paper shows that other climate scientists through the assessment method acknowledged the exclusion of other variables. Mr. Brown himself argued against which includes these variables in the final published version of the paper.

Science is devoted to comprehending the intricacies of life and the planet by way of rigorous evaluation. Explaining complexities frequently needs examining distinct elements, but this ought to not be mistaken as a deliberate ignorance of relevant variables, as implied. Every analysis paper concentrates on various variables and information, all of which contribute to our understanding. On the other hand, they will have to be viewed as portion of an interconnected network of analysis that is constantly evolving, wherein the effect 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.

Magdalena Skipper
Editor in Chief of Nature
London