Thursday
Apr012010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill New Nature climate change journal
Apr 1, 2010 Children Climate: other Journals Nature is launching a new cross-disciplinary climate change journal.
Nature Climate Change will publish original research across the physical and social sciences on a monthly basis and will strive to forge and synthesize interdisciplinary research. As such, it will be the first Nature branded journal to publish peer-review content from the social sciences community.
I've left a comment asking if they are going to require authors to submit data and code with their manuscripts.
Reader Comments (24)
Congratulations on your good work at this site.
I do not yet see your comment at the Nature site.
Morley
re: "will strive to forge and synthesize interdisciplinary research"
Isn't that the cause of all the problems in climate science. After all it was Nature that was originally tricked over the Hockey Stick (the forging and synthesising of two completely different types of data sets to produce a desired result).
Who trusts the journals after the revelations of Climategate?
Why no one!
Too early here -I can' t even spell my name.
Morley
They are just trying to work-in the brand new fashion of "sociological analyses" of the motives behind denialism.
I wish I could remember who it was that pointed out that, if a subject has "science" in its title, that's a pretty good indication that it is not actually science.
OT: Although this case reported by the BBC is not about climate it may well have implications for climate science reporting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm
@Terry: thank you for the link - I especially enjoyed "the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge".
This sounds like the marketing arm of the post-normal science narrative. It sounds utterly goulish, and I can already see papers on eco-spirituality riddled with mathematical equations in support of the Hulmisto-Ravetzian paradigm...
More opportunities to influence public opinion...lol.
Marathon became Snickers, its still a choclate bar full of nuts.
Hi andrew, i am currently writing an article on wikipedia about your book, would it be possible for you to e-mail me an image of the cover for use in the article? along with permissions to use it under a fair use license? Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marknutley/Sandbox if you wish to look at what i have written.
[Mark: I've dropped a line to the publisher who should reply direct. Let me know if you don't hear anything]
This is great news! It means Nature has realized the game is up. It will now gradually hive off all the contentious climate stuff into a separate magazine (not journal) in an attempt to rescue the proper Nature journal. Then later it can ditch the magazine or keep it at arm's length - at any rate avoid a red face.
It's way last time for government funded papers written by government scientists to get lost. Hey climate guy, want a grant, just print the conclusions we want, so we can tax the ignorant people some more and then pretend like it is controlling the climate.
The scam has been exposed.
Open science or not science at all.
You have checked the date haven't you?
Geronimo
Yes. The article is dated yesterday.
Olive Heffernan has replied:
Worth a polite comment or two back.
Very simple. No article is accepted unless data and code is archived at the time of submission.
Andrew, just a quick note to say thanks, your publisher got straight onto me and gave permissions. Great book btw :) Congrats on it.
Richard
I've dropped Olive an email.
Are they serious about the objectives of the journal?
...will strive to forge and synthesize interdisciplinary research.
What? As in "to make fraudulent copies" and "to fabricate"?
This must be an April Fool - surely nobody can be that incompetent with the language?
I quite liked the way she / they called it "the social sciences community". In my day, that meant things that weren't really dependable science but not art either - sociology, psychology etc. So climate science is defined, by Nature, as the sort of educated guesswork with limited predictability in the tightest bound experiments that categorises those areas of endeavour. Seems appropriate to me.
It is too much to hope that this means that pro-AGW garbage papers will no longer be published in the other Nature journals? Though they do have their uses, it was a very substandard paper in Nature that first raised my suspicions that something was very wrong with Climate Science.
Just note two points:
1) publlshed papers will be behind a paywall - and subject to non-public disclosure caveats when purchased
2) " ... on what people
a)expect from the journal in terms of data transparency and
b) think that scientists can realistically provide ..." (Editor Olive H quote)
published papers will have caveats on data and code as determined by the authors
a very serious issue, but it has no marketing, no money opportunities in it..so :) no one`s interested in climate change :(