- India restrict Pakistan to 105-8 in Women's T20 World Cup
- England target repeat of Pakistan Test whitewash
- Penrith Panthers win fourth straight NRL title after downing Storm
- Weary Sinner happy for day off after battling into Shanghai last 16
- Pakistan's Masood warns England still a force without Stokes
- Madrid's Carvajal to miss several months after serious knee injury
- Two elephants die in flash flooding in northern Thailand
- Sabalenka targets world number one and Wuhan hat-trick
- Tunisia votes with Saied set for re-election
- Bagnaia sets 'example' with Japan MotoGP win to cut gap on Martin
- Intense Israeli bombing rocks Beirut ahead of war anniversary
- Mozambique vote: no suspense but some disillusion
- Austrian rapper channels anti-racist rage in Romani hip-hop songs
- Ohtani magic powers Dodgers over Padres in MLB playoff thriller
- Five of the best: Pakistan-England Test thrillers
- Man sets arm on fire as marches across US mark Gaza war anniversary
- Vietnam's young coffee entrepreneurs brew up a revolution
- Trump rallies at site of failed assassination: 'Never quit'
- Too hot by day, Dubai's floodlit beaches are packed at night
- Is music finally reckoning with #MeToo?
- Fans hail Trump's 'guts' as he returns to site of rally shooting
- Lebanon state media says Israeli strikes hit south Beirut
- Miami on track for MLS record points after win in Toronto
- Monaco take top spot in Ligue 1 with win at Rennes
- Madrid beat Villarreal to level Liga leaders Barca
- Thuram treble fires Inter past Torino and up to second
- 'Fight': defiant Trump jets in to site of rally shooting
- Mexico City's new mayor sworn in with pledges on water, housing
- Israel on alert ahead of Hamas attack anniversary
- Guardians maul Tigers in MLB playoff series opener
- Macron criticises Israel on Gaza, Lebanon operations
- French rugby player whistled but 'serene' on return amid ongoing rape case
- Retegui hat-trick fires five-star Atalanta to hammering of Genoa
- Heavyweights Australia, England off to World Cup winning starts
- Visiting UN refugee agency chief decries 'terrible crisis' in Lebanon
- Spinners come to party as England defeat Bangladesh at T20 World Cup
- Search continues for missing in deadly Bosnia floods
- Man City sink Fulham to get title bid back on track
- France's Auradou whistled on Pau return in Perpignan loss amid ongoing rape case
- A 'forgotten' valley in storm-hit North Carolina, desperate for help
- Arsenal hit back in style after Southampton scare
- Hezbollah heir apparent Safieddine out of contact after strikes
- Liverpool stay top of Premier League as Arsenal, Man City win
- In dank Tour of Emilia, Pogacar shines in rainbow jersey
- DR Congo launches mpox vaccination drive, hoping to curb outbreak
- Trump returns to site of failed assassination
- Careless Leverkusen held to Bundesliga draw
- O'Brien's 'superstar' Kyprios posts landmark win on Arc weekend
- Liverpool suffer Alisson injury blow
- Habosi helps Racing beat Vannes before Auradou's playing return
Top science editor defends peer-review system in climate row
Top science journal Nature was hit with claims last week that its editors -– and those of other leading titles -– have a bias towards papers highlighting negative climate change effects. It denies the allegation.
Scientist Patrick Brown shocked his peers when he said he had tailored his study on California wildfires to emphasise global warming. He claimed it would not have been accepted if it had not pandered to editors' preferred climate "narrative".
Nature's editor-in-chief Magdalena Skipper spoke to AFP about the case and the broader challenges facing academic publishing in the age of climate change and artificial intelligence.
The interview has been edited for length and flow.
- Bias claim -
Q. Are journal editors biased towards studies that emphasise the role of climate change over other factors?
A. "The allegation that the only reason why (Patrick Brown) got the paper published in Nature was because he chose the results to fit a specific narrative makes no sense at all. I'm completely baffled (by the claim). If a researcher provides compelling, convincing, robust evidence that goes against a consensus, that study actually becomes of special interest to us -- that's how science progresses.
"Since (climate change) is a pressing issue, of course there is an awful lot of research that is funded, performed and subsequently published to probe the matter, to understand how grave the problem really is today.
"In this case we had (peer-) reviewers saying that climate change is not the only factor that affects wildfires. The author himself argued that, for the purpose of this paper, he wished to retain the focus solely on climate change.
"We were persuaded that a paper with that focus was of value to the research community because of the contribution made by the quantification (of climate impacts)."
- Studies retracted -
Q. Research shows thousands of published studies across the academic world get retracted due to irregularities. Is the peer-review system fit for purpose?
A. "I think everyone in the scientific community would agree that the peer review system isn't perfect, but it's the best system we have. No system is 100-percent perfect, which is why at Nature, we have been trialling different approaches to peer review. There can be many rounds of peer review. Its complexity depends on the comments of the reviewers. We may decide not to pursue the paper.
"We have had cases at Nature of deliberate scientific misconduct, where somebody manipulates or fabricates data. It happens across disciplines, across scientific publishing. This is extremely rare.
"I think the fact that we see retractions is actually a signal that a system works."
- Pressure to publish -
Q. Is there too much pressure on scientists to get published at any cost?
A. "Science funding is precious and scarce, let's face it. Researchers have to compete for funding. Once an investigation has been funded and carried out, it makes sense for the results to be published.
"On the other hand, PhD students in many educational systems are required to publish one or more scientific papers before they graduate. Is this a helpful requirement when we know that a large proportion of PhD students are not going to continue in research?
"In many cases, early-career researchers waste time, opportunity and money to publish in predatory journals (that, unlike Nature, take a fee without offering proper peer review and editing), where their reputation suffers. They are effectively tricked into thinking that they are genuinely publishing to share information with the community."
- AI in publishing -
Q. What measures is Nature taking to monitor the use of artificial intelligence programs in producing scientific studies?
A. "We do not disallow using LLMs (large-language models such as ChatGPT) as a tool in preparation of manuscripts. We certainly disallow the use of LLMs as co-authors. We want the authors who have availed themselves of some AI tool in the process to be very clear about it. We have published and continue to publish papers where AI was used in the research process.
"I've heard of journals which published papers where leftover text from (AI tool) prompts was included in papers. At Nature, this would be spotted by the editors. But when we work with the research community and the authors who submit to us, there is an element of trust. If we find that this trust has been abused consistently then we may have to resort to some systematic way of scanning for generative AI use."
Q. Do editors have the technical means to scan for use of these AI tools?
A. At the moment, not to my knowledge. It's an incredibly fast-moving field. These generative AI tools are themselves evolving. There are also some really promising applications of AI in accelerating research itself.
V.Fontes--PC