Two weeks ago, when Till Sawala learned about a peer-reviewed paper claiming to challenge our understanding of the universe, he was immediately skeptical. Despite being published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, Sawala, a cosmologist at the University of Helsinki, felt something was amiss. “I thought, ‘Okay, this is either one of the most important results in cosmology in the last 10 years, or it’s wrong,’” he remarked, adding that his instinct leaned toward the latter. From his perspective, the more a claim contradicts expert consensus, the less likely it is to endure thorough scrutiny. The paper suggested that on multibillion-light-year scales, the universe’s matter wasn’t as evenly distributed as previously thought. Such a claim, if accurate, would disrupt long-standing cosmic theories.
“If something this significant had been overlooked, it would have been quite an embarrassment to the community,” Sawala noted, emphasizing the need to correct the record.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The Nature paper revolved around a vast dataset encompassing 47 million galaxies and quasars over more than 11 billion years of the universe’s 13.8-billion-year history, captured by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI). Like previous datasets, the DESI data showed intergalactic matter forming a vast “cosmic web” of galaxy-rich filaments and sheets surrounding expansive voids low in galaxies. However, the paper’s authors claimed these filaments extended farther than previously known—billions of light-years—and were oriented in specific directions. If true, this would contradict the cosmological principle, which states that the universe’s large-scale structure is isotropic.
Upon further review, Sawala identified issues with the data scaling. He contended that the authors calculated galaxy distances using “luminosity distance” instead of “comoving distance” and failed to adjust for the universe’s expansion. Sawala’s independent analysis suggests that, after these corrections, the DESI data aligns with the established view: no unexpected mega-alignments of filaments; no breach of the cosmological principle.
Francesco Sylos Labini, one of the paper’s authors and a physicist at the Enrico Fermi Research Center in Rome, noted that Sawala’s analysis focused on the universe’s structural patchiness rather than orientation. However, Sawala maintained that the errors he identified are relevant regardless of the perspective.
Esteemed journals like Nature uphold their status by publishing significant research, especially work with groundbreaking implications. Yet, as Carl Sagan famously stated, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” underscoring the importance of rigorous peer review. Sawala acknowledged, “In order for a paper to be in Nature, it has to be groundbreaking. This was definitely groundbreaking, so it cleared that hurdle. But it turned out not to be correct.”
David Spergel, an astrophysicist and president of the Simons Foundation, expressed disappointment that the paper passed peer review, suggesting that Nature’s editors should exercise greater caution in the future. Sawala himself admitted that even if he had been a reviewer, he might not have identified such a fundamental error, as reviewers typically specialize in only certain aspects of a paper.
Cosmologist Daniel Eisenstein of Harvard University, who was not involved in the paper, concurred, stating, “Unfortunately, it’s easy to see how this kind of bug could sit unnoticed in a code for a long time. It is not obvious to me that a reviewer should reasonably have caught it.”
Sawala has submitted his critique for peer review, and the preprint is already circulating in the cosmology community. However, follow-up corrections rarely attract the same attention as the original sensational claims, which can distort public understanding of the science.
These challenges in peer review are why physicists increasingly use preprint servers like arXiv.org, which enable community-wide evaluation of a paper. Sawala commented, “You’d have to be lucky, with one or two reviewers, if they happened to catch this. But someone else surely would have if it had been on arXiv.” The Nature paper was not shared on arXiv.org or elsewhere before its publication.
When scientists submit a high-profile result to a leading journal like Nature, they often keep it confidential until shortly before publication, when journalists are briefed. This strategy, known as “embargo,” makes publication a more newsworthy event but can hinder scientific transparency.
Sawala stated, “I think these embargoes serve the publication more than the science. And I think the science should come first.”
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
