The China Mail - Top science publisher withdraws flawed climate study

USD -
AED 3.672503
AFN 63.999633
ALL 81.13116
AMD 364.066319
ANG 1.790365
AOA 917.999554
ARS 1524.997501
AUD 1.439429
AWG 1.8025
AZN 1.699887
BAM 1.725719
BBD 2.018882
BDT 123.247965
BGN 1.683441
BHD 0.377906
BIF 3005.722202
BMD 1
BND 1.279885
BOB 12.063778
BRL 5.184055
BSD 1.002338
BTN 96.076978
BWP 14.120969
BYN 3.01672
BYR 19600
BZD 2.01597
CAD 1.42459
CDF 2310.000003
CHF 0.836205
CLF 0.024656
CLP 973.539878
CNY 6.70475
CNH 6.71436
COP 3314.79
CRC 457.846208
CUC 1
CUP 24.056893
CVE 97.29465
CZK 21.580966
DJF 178.497375
DKK 6.601103
DOP 59.602065
DZD 133.919964
EGP 51.941199
ERN 15
ETB 163.729916
EUR 0.88295
FJD 2.24875
FKP 0.756991
GBP 0.75445
GEL 2.60498
GGP 0.756991
GHS 11.732889
GIP 0.756991
GMD 74.000372
GNF 8750.000468
GTQ 7.658099
GYD 209.730789
HKD 7.84665
HNL 26.909604
HRK 6.6528
HTG 131.186306
HUF 323.419643
IDR 17937
ILS 3.07365
IMP 0.756991
INR 95.96915
IQD 1313.138889
IRR 1693792.502544
ISK 120.969796
JEP 0.756991
JMD 158.635902
JOD 0.708994
JPY 158.143502
KES 129.719972
KGS 87.4487
KHR 4065.101628
KMF 435.000056
KPW 900.000318
KRW 1360.175049
KWD 0.30903
KYD 0.835337
KZT 440.918897
LAK 22497.408184
LBP 89762.385847
LKR 331.231884
LRD 171.912363
LSL 16.416191
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.411082
MAD 9.723465
MDL 17.796797
MGA 4402.876428
MKD 54.331282
MMK 2099.600314
MNT 3599.1704
MOP 8.102072
MRU 40.144704
MUR 47.75987
MVR 15.449965
MWK 1738.121498
MXN 18.08776
MYR 4.086498
MZN 63.909596
NAD 16.41706
NGN 1326.860227
NIO 36.892099
NOK 9.633325
NPR 153.717739
NZD 1.77802
OMR 0.384505
PAB 1.002374
PEN 3.450819
PGK 4.536992
PHP 62.741981
PKR 277.681916
PLN 3.85205
PYG 5864.031411
QAR 3.65434
RON 4.657014
RSD 103.796978
RUB 83.375041
RWF 1480.037058
SAR 3.759293
SBD 8.032647
SCR 13.836223
SDG 601.505977
SEK 10.01845
SGD 1.27922
SHP 0.755829
SLE 24.649875
SLL 20969.491881
SOS 572.815106
SRD 37.621502
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.617329
SVC 8.77073
SYP 13002.000254
SZL 16.407994
THB 33.620498
TJS 9.232161
TMT 3.51
TND 2.97262
TOP 2.40776
TRY 49.032203
TTD 6.800164
TWD 31.937496
TZS 2640.002984
UAH 44.775489
UGX 3929.198542
UYU 40.386126
UZS 11858.028368
VES 857.98905
VND 25966
VUV 119.008285
WST 2.76852
XAF 579.17706
XAG 0.016353
XAU 0.000240041575
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.806559
XDR 0.707052
XOF 579.17706
XPF 105.230186
YER 236.396786
ZAR 16.44243
ZMK 9001.20083
ZMW 19.596771
ZWL 321.999592
SSP 5712.591896
MXV 2.047495
  • RYCEF

    0.4000

    19.71

    +2.03%

  • CMSC

    0.0000

    20.4

    0%

  • BTI

    0.4200

    56.05

    +0.75%

  • BP

    0.2800

    44.43

    +0.63%

  • RBGPF

    1.6000

    67

    +2.39%

  • RIO

    -0.1500

    94.41

    -0.16%

  • AZN

    -0.4300

    166.15

    -0.26%

  • GSK

    0.4600

    49.7

    +0.93%

  • BCE

    -0.4100

    20.56

    -1.99%

  • NGG

    -0.2500

    75.24

    -0.33%

  • VOD

    -0.0400

    16.58

    -0.24%

  • RELX

    -0.4500

    33.07

    -1.36%

  • BCC

    -0.5500

    76.59

    -0.72%

  • CMSD

    -0.0300

    20.27

    -0.15%

  • JRI

    -0.2500

    10.77

    -2.32%

Top science publisher withdraws flawed climate study
Top science publisher withdraws flawed climate study / Photo: © GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File

Top science publisher withdraws flawed climate study

Top science publisher Springer Nature said it has withdrawn a study that presented misleading conclusions on climate change impacts after an investigation prompted by an AFP inquiry.

Text size:

AFP reported in September 2022 on concerns over the peer-reviewed study by four Italian scientists that appeared earlier that year in the European Physical Journal Plus, published by Springer Nature.

The study had drawn positive attention from climate-sceptic media.

The paper, titled "A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming", purported to review data on possible changes in the frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather events.

Several climate scientists contacted by AFP said the study manipulated data, cherry picked facts and ignored others that would contradict their assertions, prompting the publisher to launch an internal review.

"The Editors and publishers concluded that they no longer had confidence in the results and conclusions of the article," Springer Nature told AFP in an email late Wednesday.

The journal's editors published an online note stating that the paper was retracted due to concerns over "the selection of the data, the analysis and the resulting conclusions".

- Peer-review standards -

It said the paper had been freshly reviewed by experts and the authors invited to submit an addendum in response to the criticisms.

But a review found this "not suitable for publication and that the conclusions of the article were not supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors".

Springer Nature said in its email that the investigation was conducted by its Research Integrity Group in line with guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The paper's authors were identified in order as Gianluca Alimonti, a physicist at a nuclear physics institute; Luigi Mariani, an agricultural meteorologist, and physicists Franco Prodi and Renato Angelo Ricci.

The latter two were named as signatories of the World Climate Declaration, a text that repeated various debunked claims about climate change, an AFP fact check article found.

Their study was "not published in a climate journal," Stefan Rahmstorf, Head of Earth Systems at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told AFP at the time.

"This is a common avenue taken by 'climate sceptics' in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field."

Recent studies have indicated that climate misinformation has flourished online as governments push reforms to curb use of the fossil fuels that cause planet-warming carbon emissions.

A further investigation published by AFP in April 2023 showed that sceptics opposed to the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change had got other misleading studies published in peer-reviewed journals.

Experts pointed to widespread concerns about peer-review standards in the lucrative academic publishing industry.

Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks withdrawals of academic papers, counted 5,000 such cases in 2022 -- about a tenth of a percent of the total number of studies published, its co-founder Ivan Oransky told AFP.

Y.Su--ThChM