In the news short article 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 elements beyond climate modify when deciding on which investigation to publish. Nevertheless, this statement is incorrect. It was Mr. Brown himself, not Nature, who narrowed the concentrate of his investigation solely on climate modify, as clearly stated in the opening paragraph of the investigation paper we published. Moreover, publicly accessible facts accompanying the paper shows that other climate scientists in the course of the overview procedure 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 via rigorous evaluation. Explaining complexities usually calls for examining particular elements, but this ought to not be mistaken as a deliberate ignorance of relevant elements, as implied. Every investigation paper concentrates on unique elements and information, all of which contribute to our understanding. Nevertheless, they have to be viewed as aspect of an interconnected network of investigation 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 particular narrative alleged by Mr. Brown. By examining these examples collectively, we can advance our understanding.

Magdalena Skipper
Editor in Chief of Nature
London