Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Russell review submissions | Main | Keep on gatekeeping »

New Nature climate change journal

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.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (24)

Congratulations on your good work at this site.
I do not yet see your comment at the Nature site.

Apr 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterMoroley Sutter

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!

Apr 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Too early here -I can' t even spell my name.

Apr 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterMorley Sutter

They are just trying to work-in the brand new fashion of "sociological analyses" of the motives behind denialism.

Apr 1, 2010 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Wright

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.

Apr 1, 2010 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Ackroyd

OT: Although this case reported by the BBC is not about climate it may well have implications for climate science reporting:

Apr 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

@Terry: thank you for the link - I especially enjoyed "the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge".

Apr 1, 2010 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

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...

Apr 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered Commenterjustinert

More opportunities to influence public

Apr 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin

Marathon became Snickers, its still a choclate bar full of nuts.

Apr 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterShevva

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. 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]

Apr 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Nutley

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.

Apr 1, 2010 at 1:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterjulie

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.

Apr 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill-tb

You have checked the date haven't you?

Apr 1, 2010 at 3:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo


Yes. The article is dated yesterday.

Apr 1, 2010 at 4:12 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Olive Heffernan has replied:


That's an excellent question, and it's one that we're giving alot of thought to. We haven't formed a concrete data policy for the journal yet, but we recognize that it's an issue and we want to do everything we can to address it. We're currently looking at technical solutions to providing data online, as well as our policy on data requirements for published manuscripts, not just in the area of climate change, but across the board.

What would be really helpful in formulating our data policy for Nature Climate Chnage is input from the community on what people
a)expect from the journal in terms of data transparency and
b) think that scientists can realistically provide. All comments welcome.

Worth a polite comment or two back.

Apr 1, 2010 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Very simple. No article is accepted unless data and code is archived at the time of submission.

Apr 1, 2010 at 5:11 PM | Unregistered Commentermichel

Andrew, just a quick note to say thanks, your publisher got straight onto me and gave permissions. Great book btw :) Congrats on it.

Apr 1, 2010 at 8:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Nutley


I've dropped Olive an email.

Apr 1, 2010 at 9:04 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

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?

Apr 1, 2010 at 10:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterJimD

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.

Apr 2, 2010 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterSurreptitious Evil

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.

Apr 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered Commentertty

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

Apr 3, 2010 at 1:46 AM | Unregistered Commenterianl8888

a very serious issue, but it has no marketing, no money opportunities in :) no one`s interested in climate change :(

May 13, 2010 at 6:59 AM | Unregistered Commentersustainability

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>