Editor of Nature journal slams climate scientist Patrick Brown’s ‘highly irresponsible’ research after he said publications reject studies that don’t ‘support certain narratives’

The editor-in-chief of one of the world’s leading academic journals has chided a scientist who claimed climate change research is rejected if it “doesn’t support certain narratives.”

Dr. Magdalena Skipper, senior editor at Nature, accused Patrick T. Brown, a Johns Hopkins University lecturer and doctor of earth and climate sciences, of “bad research practices” that are “deeply irresponsible.”

Brown claimed in an article for The free press that editors of Nature and Science – two of the most prestigious scientific journals – “select climate articles that support certain pre-approved narratives” and favor “twisted” research that exaggerates hazards.

Referring to an article he wrote that was published last week in Nature, he said the research — titled “Climate Warming Increases Extreme Daily Risk of Wildfire Growth in California” — focused solely on climate change and deliberately ignored other key factors. Brown said researchers often “tailor” their work to “support the mainstream narrative.”

In a scathing response, Skipper said: ‘The only thing in Patrick Brown’s statements about the editorial processes in scientific journals that we agree on is that science should not benefit from the efforts with which he published this (research).

Patrick T. Brown, a professor at Johns Hopkins University with a doctorate in earth and climate sciences, said editors of Nature and Science — two of the most prestigious scientific journals — want “climate articles that support certain pre-approved stories.”

Brown said one of his studies on the subject was published by Nature “because I stuck with a story that I knew the editors would like”

“We are now carefully considering the implications of his stated actions; they certainly reflect bad research practices and are not in line with the standards we set for our journal.’

Skipper said nature “expects” researchers to use the most appropriate data, methods and results.

‘If researchers don’t do that, it goes against the interests of both fellow researchers and the research field as a whole. It is highly irresponsible at best not to do this on purpose. Researchers have a responsibility for their research and they should take it seriously,’ she says.

Based in London, Nature was founded in 1869 and is one of the most cited scientific journals in the world.

“When it comes to science, nature has no preferred narrative,” says Skipper.

The strongly worded rebuttal came after Brown claimed leading scientific journals are approaching climate change research in the way that “the press focuses so intently on climate change as the root cause” of wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in Hawaii.

He pointed to research that showed that 80 percent of forest fires are started by humans.

Brown said, “The editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both through what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate articles that support certain pre-approved stories — even if those stories come at the cost of broader knowledge for society.”

He wrote, “To put it bluntly, climate science is less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change.

Brown also targeted the media for “deliberately focusing on climate change as the root cause” of wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in Hawaii. Pictured: A search, rescue, and recovery member conducts search operations in areas damaged by wildfires in Maui in Lahaina

An aerial view of Lahaina shows the magnitude of the destruction caused by the wildfires in Hawaii

“As understandable as this instinct may be, it distorts much of climate science research, misinforms the public and, most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”

Scientists whose careers depend on having their work published in major journals also adapt their work to “support the mainstream narrative,” he said.

“This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate document,” he added. “The authors should ignore – or at least downplay – practical actions that can counteract the impact of climate change.”

Skipper’s answer also pointed to the peer review process for Brown’s paper – co-authored with seven other researchers – that described the “lack of of including variables other than climate change’ and said, ‘the authors themselves argued against including it’.

She also cited three recent examples of research published in Nature thatfollow the alleged editorial bias alleged by Brown.