Scientist says he tailored climate study to expose 'bias' in journal

In a controversial bid to expose supposed bias in a top journal, a US climate expert shocked fellow scientists by revealing he tailored a wildfire study to emphasise global warming.

Patrick T Brown flagged what he called a one-sided climate "narrative" in academic publishing. "I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like," the article read. "That's not the way science should work."

"I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published," read the headline to an article signed by Brown in the news site The Free Press on September 5.

He said he deliberately focused on the impact from higher temperatures on wildfire risk in a study in the journal, excluding other factors such as land management.

Co-author surprised

One of the named co-authors of the study, Steven J Davis, a professor in the earth system science department at the University of California, Irvine, said Brown's comments took him "by surprise".

"Patrick may have made decisions that he thought would help the paper be published, but we don't know whether a different paper would have been rejected," he said in an email.

"I don't think he has much evidence to support his strong claims that editors and reviewers are biased."

Brown is co-director of the climate and energy team at the Breakthrough Institute, a private non-profit group that researches technological responses to environmental issues, including boosting nuclear energy.

He did not respond to the requests to comment following his September 5 revelation but wrote about it in detail on his blog and on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Ethical questions

A number of tweets applauded Brown for his "bravery", "openness" and "transparency". Others said his move raised ethical questions.

His presentation of the research in the study "is a choice, but to boast about it publicly is next level", tweeted David Ho, a climate scientist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks cases of academic papers being withdrawn, said Brown's move "ends up feeling like a sting operation... of questionable ethics".

Nature's editor in chief Magdalena Skipper dismissed Brown's actions as "irresponsible", arguing that they reflected "poor research practices".

"When it comes to science, Nature does not have a preferred narrative," she said in a statement.