Scientists Urge Stronger Climate Risk Research Transparency

Researchers call for changes in how risk projections are reported and replicated

Jan. 29, 2026 at 5:47am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A new Rutgers-coauthored paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) found that of 258 top-cited climate risk papers published in leading climate risk journals in 2021-2022, only 4% shared both their data and the computer code used to produce their results. The study highlights the lack of transparency and reusability in climate risk research, which can undermine the scientific process and public trust.

Why it matters

When results are transparent and research is replicable, climate risk analysis can better support effective adaptation and mitigation efforts. However, the study found that data limitations and fundamental validation challenges raise concerns about the reliability of commercial climate risk projections, which are increasingly guiding important decisions.

The details

The researchers reviewed the top-cited articles from 11 of the field's biggest journals, classifying articles as having data and underlying programming code that were "open," "mostly open," "mostly closed" or "closed." Even among the most influential climate risk publications, openness was severely limited, with 88% of the 228 studies with "closed" or "mostly closed" code providing no explanation for falling short of transparency standards.

  • The study reviewed climate risk papers published in 2021-2022.

The players

Robert Kopp

A Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences and a coauthor of the PNAS Perspective. He directs the Megalopolitan Coastal Transformation Hub (MACH), a National Science Foundation-funded consortium at Rutgers.

Adam Pollack

An assistant professor at the University of Iowa and an affiliated researcher at MACH, who is the lead author of the study.

Lisa Auermuller

The executive director of MACH and a study coauthor.

Klaus Keller

The Hodgson Distinguished Professor at the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth College and a co-principal investigator at MACH.

Nancy Tuana

Holds the DuPont/Class of 1949 Professorship in Philosophy and Women's Studies at Penn State and is a coauthor of the study.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“When a risk analysis is based on algorithms or code that are not transparent or reusable, it cannot be properly verified. Thus, the public is really taking it on faith that the conclusions are valid.”

— Robert Kopp, Distinguished Professor, Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences

“When data and code are difficult or impossible to access, it slows down climate risk science -especially in application areas that require integrating many areas of expertise, methods and tools.”

— Adam Pollack, Assistant Professor, University of Iowa

“In addition to citing and describing the challenges, we also provide a set of low-cost measures that researchers and journals can adopt now - measures we work to implement within our own research at MACH. These actions will increase transparency and reusability.”

— Lisa Auermuller, Executive Director, MACH

What’s next

The researchers stressed that the lack of openness in the top climate risk publications does not indicate flawed research or undermine the big-picture findings of climate science. They provided a set of low-cost measures that researchers and journals can adopt to increase transparency and reusability, which they are working to implement within their own research at MACH.

The takeaway

This study highlights the critical need for greater transparency and reusability in climate risk research, which is essential for building cumulative knowledge, verifying findings, and supporting more effective climate adaptation and mitigation efforts. Addressing these issues can help strengthen public trust and accelerate progress in this crucial field of study.