Climate Change – News and Comments
Nature muddies the water
As a science writer I’m well used to picking my way through the minefield of embargoes on papers not yet published. I know, too, of possible risks to scientists as well as journalists, when quoting from preprints or even reporting results presented at a conference. Publication can be cancelled.
You’d expect clear guidance from leading journals on that subject. How bewildering then, to read an editorial “Scientific climate” in today’s Nature (vol. 478, p. 428). It’s on the subject of the Berkeley Earth / Richard Muller furore noted in my recent posts. The editorial’s sub-heading is:
Results confirming climate change are welcome, even when released before peer review.
… Where “climate change” is to be understood, I suppose, as “catastrophic manmade global warming”. Other points from the editorial are, as I construe them:
- The welcome is the stronger because the Muller results can be used against the Republicans in the USA.
- But Muller really should not have publicised his work as he did.
- Muller is wrong to claim that Science and Nature forbid the discussion of unpublished results – Nature only opposes pre-publicity.
- All that said, it was fine for physicists to give pre-publicity to apparent evidence of neutrinos travelling faster than light.
What on earth does all that mean, to scientists and journalists who are just trying to tell their stories promptly? Here are three extracts from Nature’s instructions to authors concerning embargoes, which can be seen in full here http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html
“Material submitted to Nature journals must not be discussed with the media, except in the case of accepted contributions, which can be discussed with the media no more than a week before the publication date under our embargo conditions. We reserve the right to halt the consideration or publication of a paper if this condition is broken.”
“The benefits of peer review as a means of giving journalists confidence in new work published in journals are self-evident. Premature release to the media denies journalists that confidence. It also removes journalists’ ability to obtain informed reactions about the work from independent researchers in the field.”
“… communicate with other researchers as much as you wish, whether on a recognised community preprint server, on Nature Precedings, by discussion at scientific meetings (publication of abstracts in conference proceedings is allowed), in an academic thesis, or by online collaborative sites such as wikis; but do not encourage premature publication by discussion with the press (beyond a formal presentation, if at a conference).”
What the new editorial means, in my opinion, is that the politicisation of science has now penetrated right through to the workaday rituals of publication. On no account must you publicise your new work prematurely, unless you do it to bash the climate sceptics or the Republican Party or supporters of Special Relativity or anyone else the editors happen to dislike today. In that case they’ll forgive you.
Has any paper first posted on arXiv.org later accepted by Nature/Science? Or, is the neutrinos case special or general?
Beware of shoplifters bearing gifts! As with the value of the dollar, the pound, the euro, and the whatnot, integrity in science is in serious decline. Depression in many guises is upon us all.
Excellent, succint stuff as usual, Nigel.
What an enormous shame that even Nature has lost its principles.
Pure Darwinism in the long term, in my view.
Who and what publication can one now have faith in?
Please keep up the good work – on behalf of all of us.
Looking at the list of Nature’s editors, linked below, it appears likely that the editorial editor could be David Adam, who has recently rejoined Nature after 7 years working as an environmental journalist at the Guardian. If so, no surprise that Nature editorials = Guardian environmental journalism TM