Climate scientists tell us why it’s utterly, utterly normal to have a paper rejected
Image - Timesdissent (note)An article in yesterday’s Times featured claims that a climate scientist’s work was “censored” because it “questioned the accuracy of computer models used to predict global warming”.
Rather less excitingly, what actually happened was an “utterly, utterly normal” example of peer review in action, scientists tell us.
The scientist involved agrees that the journal’s comments were correct, and his paper was subsequently published – it’s available here.
So what’s the story?
Accusations of censorship
The Times article – entitled ‘Voices of dissent drowned out by climate change scientists’ discusses research German climate scientist Vladimir Semenov submitted to the Journal of Climate in 2009.
Ben Webster, an experienced environment correspondent, suggests parts of Semenov’s paper were “deleted” before publication because they represented a “voice of dissent”. Webster says:
“The paper suggested that the computer models used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were flawed, resulting in human influence on the climate being exaggerated and the impact of natural variability being underplayed.”
Semenov is quoted as suggesting the journal’s intervention amounted to “some kind of censorship”. Had the paper not been revised, it could have had “profound implications”, the Times claims.
“Utterly, utterly normal”
To have their research published in a scientific journal, scientists have to go through a process called peer review. At least two independent reviewers – sometimes four or five – provide comments on the quality and newness of the research, and recommend to the editor whether it can be published or needs to be revised.
Is this case it was the latter, as the Times reports:
“One academic reviewer said that a section should not be published because it “would lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community”. Another wrote: “This entire discussion has to disappear.” “
Without the full comments, it’s hard to see in what context the reviewers said this. But Semenov himself is quoted in the Times saying the reviewers’ criticisms were “technically correct” because the text they asked him to remove wasn’t backed up by the evidence in the paper.
As many scientists have taken to twitter to point out, this is essentially a non-story – particularly as it happened five years ago.
Getting papers reviewed
We asked scientists whether having papers rejected or receiving harsh review comments was unusual.
Not at all, says Dr Doug McNeall, a climate statistician at the Met Office. To have a paper rejected at first and only accepted after extensive changes is “utterly, utterly normal” he says. Professor Piers Forster from the University of Leeds tells us:
“My papers are often rejected by top journals (especially Science and Nature) and occasionally by other good journals on first submission. My own “low climate sensitivity” paper was rejected twice before being published in the Journal of Climate.”
Occasionally, reviewers recommend publication without any changes, explains Dr Tim Osborn from the University of East Anglia. But, he adds:
“[M]any more recommend that a paper be published after certain flaws or limitations are addressed.”
In fact, initial rejection is “more like the common situation these days”, says Professor Mat Collins, joint Met Office chair at Exeter University.
Dealing with rejection
If an author gets sent back to them with a to-do list from reviewers, they have a choice.
They can address the comments and resubmit the paper. Scientists may initially feel disgruntled by dealing with tough questions, and often poorly-phrased or harshly-worded criticism. As Dr Mark Brandon, polar oceanographer at the Open University, puts it:
“[M]oaning about reviewers is common at any department coffee morning.”
But if an author genuinely objects, they can write to the journal editor, Osborn explains:
“As an author you don’t need to accept all suggestions from reviewers. If they’ve erred in their evaluation then I’ve told the editor this and argued why the paper should not be changed in the way suggested.”
The final say then lies with the editor, explains Brandon.
“If an editor feels a review is biased or unfair then that is the editor’s role to weigh that in their decision.”
In this case, Semenov agreed with the reviewers that some of his conclusions speculated beyond the results of the paper. So he took them out and the paper was published.
A paper can still get rejected even after the author has addressed reviewers’ comments – that’s also not unusual. Professor Andrew Dessler from Texas A&M university tells us:
“Having a paper rejected is nothing unusual … I’m guessing that the Journal of Climate rejects 30 to 50 per cent of the papers submitted.”
Rejection rates don’t indicate journals are averse to publishing research that challenges mainstream thinking. It’s the opposite, says Dr Bethan Davies, expert in ice sheets and sea level rise at the University of Reading:
“[I]f a paper was methodologically sound with novel results, it would be published even if it did challenge the status quo â?¦ But only if the paper is robust. If the findings are overblown or over interpreted â?¦ these would all be standard reasons for rejection.”
That said, Piers Forster explains why for papers that challenge well-established science, the review process might be longer:
“Papers making challenging statements that rock the status quo typically get harder reviews than dull ones. This may feel like bias but I just think that the burden of proof is rightly larger if you want to challenge so much established science.”
As long as a paper is good quality, having a paper rejected from one journal doesn’t mean you can’t publish it elsewhere, suggests Richard Allan, climate science professor at Reading University:
“[A]ssuming that your analysis is neither flawed nor unimportant then there are plenty of opportunities to resubmit a revised version to the same journal or an alternative one.”
If some of Semenov’s conclusions didn’t fit with the original paper, he could have published them separately, says Dr Ed Hawkins from the University of Reading:
“The solution is simple: if you want to make a particular point that isn’t clearly demonstrated in the present study, then then write a new paper”.
Quality control
So that’s how it all works. But is there any reason to fear censorship for raising unpopular issues?
Professor Reto Knutti from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich tells us:
“[I]n my view it misleading to argue that certain views get censored based on a single paper … rejection as such is common and part of the quality control..”
In this case, what’s important is that decisions are made even-handedly and not simply because the text questioned the climate change projections, adds Tim Osborn:
“I expect there are plenty of instances where discussion that represents an exaggerated view of current climate science understanding has been culled during the review process.”
Scientists turning to the media after receiving comments from a reviewer is poor form, suggests Dr Alex Otto from Oxford University. He says:
“[I]n general, I find it troubling that scientists who get a rejection take this to the media. If I got a rejection which I think was unjustified, I would raise this issue with the journal, and usually the journals deal with this kind of complaint very thoroughly.”
As for newspapers publishing these sorts of stories, Dr Simon Lewis, expert in climate change impacts on forests at the University of Leeds, suggests:
“Newspapers that give valuable space to scientists complaining about having papers rejected merely show that the newspapers in question have little understanding of how scientific discoveries get published. Or more cynically, perhaps the newspapers do understand the realities of scientific publishing, but are exploiting their readers’ lack of understanding”.
This story follows a front page story Webster wrote in May, which claimed a paper by scientist Lennart Bengtsson had been “deliberately suppressed” because of his climate skeptic views. In fact, the journal rejected the paper because it “contained errors” – as the full reviewers’ comments clearly showed.
These are – charitably – not the strongest stories, and we can only speculate about why the Times has chosen to run with them.