Misleading studies slip into scientific journals and sow doubt about climate change, alert researchers who cite recent articles whose authors are suspected of conflict of interest.
Researchers are concerned about the business model of some journals that receive payments from academics seeking publication, without any real rigorous peer review.
“The recent explosion in the number of these ‘predatory journals’ is creating problems that are being exploited by climate skeptics,” says Carl Schleussner, fellow at the research institute Climate Analytics. “It opens the door to anyone who wants to spread questionable work. »
• Read also: What if the oceans could serve as CO2 sponges?
” Disinformation ”
A study published in November 2022 in the Journal of South American Earth Sciencewhich charges authors to publish, denies that the melting of a Peruvian glacier, and the associated risk of flooding, are caused by human-induced warming.
Two of its authors, the geologist Sebastian Luening and the former chemist entered politics Fritz Vahrenholt, are former officials of the German energy company RWE, which is the subject of a lawsuit over the glacier.
They are also known for their climatosceptic positions. Contacted by AFP, they did not respond.
Paleoclimatologist Nathan Stansell of Northern Illinois University had his work cited in Sebastian Luening’s article. He told AFP that it is strewn with “disinformation, misinterpretations and bias”.
“It repeats a discredited argument that since it was hot in medieval times, global warming wouldn’t be alarming,” he said.
“Most of the paleoclimatological community believes that the groups trying to propagate this fallacious idea cannot compete with solid scientific data. »
Two other researchers cited in the study – Jorge Strelin of the University of Cordoba in Argentina and Ben Marzeion of the University of Bremen – also told AFP that their work had been misappropriated.
• Read also: A Supersonic, Star-Creating Black Hole Has Been Discovered
Conflicts of interest
Elsevier, the group that publishes the journal, told AFP that its editors “have not detected any ethical breaches and that in their view the two groups of researchers are simply at odds”.
The group recognizes, however, that the article lacks a mention of the links between the authors and RWE. “The publisher wishes to apologize for any inconvenience caused,” he said.
Another article, published in the journal remote-sensing in 2021, was dedicated to the Peruvian glacier. Based on ice flow velocity data, he concludes that there is no evidence of impending flooding.
Nathan Stansell considers that the part on the risk of flooding should have been the subject of a separate study, because it “seems out of place and has no direct relationship with the main results”.
An article published in 2022 by the investigative media Source Material claims that the study was funded by RWE. The authors, who in this article claim to have worked for free, did not respond to AFP.
Guido Steffen, spokesperson for RWE, denied any role for the company in these two studies and their financing.
• Read also: The earthworm is under threat and here’s why it should worry us
“junk”
In September 2022, leading climate scientists called for the withdrawal of a study that claimed the climate crisis was not scientifically proven.
The peer-reviewed article, written by four Italian researchers, appeared in the journal European Physical Journal Morefrom the prestigious publisher Springer Nature.
Four researchers told AFP that the study manipulated data and was selective in the data retained. Springer Nature responded by adding a disclaimer to the article and announcing that it was investigating. A Springer official told AFP in March that the investigation was “still ongoing”.
Peer review, a foundation of the system of scientific rigor by which research articles are evaluated by a peer review committee made up of several scientists independent of the authors, is supposed to establish the reputation of the most prestigious publications.
But the level has dropped with the proliferation of publications on the internet, some argue.
Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, a site that lists retractions of academic papers, told AFP that authors are seeking to publish questionable work in journals with failing peer review systems, with unqualified reading committees.
According to him, “peer review misses a lot of junk. It is high time that everyone admits it, so that we can do better. »
In some cases, “climate skeptics get very sneaky,” adds Nathan Stansell. “They slip into their studies elements that have nothing to do with the subject, to be able to refer to them later”.