Anecdotal only, sorry. I’m sure it varies by field, and it’s more about letters than longer papers. There are probably fields where Nature is excellent, but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.
but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.
…
you know, there is a difference between “getting published in Nature” and “submitting your work to Nature”. It’s subtle, perhaps: one involves being published in the journal. For the world to see and scrutinize.
I bet they get lots of letters that they do, indeed, find aren’t well substantiated enough to publish.
Also, one field. Lmao.
Also, please tell me why you made your first comment, I’m genuinely curious. Did you read about this somewhere? Where, if you recall?
that sounds like the dumbest horseshit I’ve ever heard of, namely because even if it were true, you’d still be wrong for a different reason: an educational journal is built on its reputation.
let’s assume – even for a brief moment – you are, in fact, 100% correct with this claim.
You’re almost definitely not, but hey, let’s assume.
scientists are all about being right, so much so that they loathe their own frauds (watch some BobbyBroccoli documentaries if you don’t believe me), and they also take extreme pleasure in disproving each other. sometimes, good science is in trying to disprove what some other guy or some other team said because “I want to be right/I want that fucker I hate to be wrong (we’re all petty humans, even scientists)/I want us to understand the world better, and we need to know if this is in fact as they claim”. Peer review is ingrained in their doctrine, that’s what good science is. You think if someone, a person with enemies, competition, and friends alike, got their paper in one of the most prestigious educational journals in the world, someone, somewhere wouldn’t be going “nuh-uh! I bet I can prove otherwise!”? And at that point it’s two scholars betting their career dick to swing around that they’re right and the other guy’s wrong, unless of course peer review actually means that prestigious journals generally don’t publish horseshit.
in short: your claim is not only wrong, it is… a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works as a concept, I feel? Maybe not always in practice – there’s always politics sticking their dick into the mix to muddy the waters – but that’s part of what these journals pay and charge for. Prestigious peers. To review papers.
now, are they fair prices for knowledge that helps us all is another debate, but suffice to say: going “fuck you I’m gonna find out if you’re wrong” is literally part of the job.
Are you just, like… not that bright? Or is this just a transient phase, a hard night for you?
it’s not about a takedown, really, I’m not trying to be mean (not especially hard, anyways), I just want to understand what Nature, or science as a whole, did to piss them off enough to make shit up about it. Or if they’re just having a bad day they oughta just say so.
I’m a researcher. Nature is good but it still has mistakes. Sometimes they are a tad sloppy but they are still far, far better than what you may know from popular science. In general, some mistakes are normal and expected because science works by finding and fixing mistakes, not by immediately discovering ultimate truth. This applies even in math.
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
I’m dying at the irony of claiming 50% of all Nature articles are wrong while also providing literally no evidence
Got evidence for that bold claim?
Anecdotal only, sorry. I’m sure it varies by field, and it’s more about letters than longer papers. There are probably fields where Nature is excellent, but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.
Ok, so you got nothing, and you’re talking out of your ass. Great, thanks. Go outside.
…
you know, there is a difference between “getting published in Nature” and “submitting your work to Nature”. It’s subtle, perhaps: one involves being published in the journal. For the world to see and scrutinize.
I bet they get lots of letters that they do, indeed, find aren’t well substantiated enough to publish.
Also, one field. Lmao.
Also, please tell me why you made your first comment, I’m genuinely curious. Did you read about this somewhere? Where, if you recall?
that sounds like the dumbest horseshit I’ve ever heard of, namely because even if it were true, you’d still be wrong for a different reason: an educational journal is built on its reputation.
let’s assume – even for a brief moment – you are, in fact, 100% correct with this claim.
You’re almost definitely not, but hey, let’s assume.
scientists are all about being right, so much so that they loathe their own frauds (watch some BobbyBroccoli documentaries if you don’t believe me), and they also take extreme pleasure in disproving each other. sometimes, good science is in trying to disprove what some other guy or some other team said because “I want to be right/I want that fucker I hate to be wrong (we’re all petty humans, even scientists)/I want us to understand the world better, and we need to know if this is in fact as they claim”. Peer review is ingrained in their doctrine, that’s what good science is. You think if someone, a person with enemies, competition, and friends alike, got their paper in one of the most prestigious educational journals in the world, someone, somewhere wouldn’t be going “nuh-uh! I bet I can prove otherwise!”? And at that point it’s two scholars betting their career dick to swing around that they’re right and the other guy’s wrong, unless of course peer review actually means that prestigious journals generally don’t publish horseshit.
in short: your claim is not only wrong, it is… a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works as a concept, I feel? Maybe not always in practice – there’s always politics sticking their dick into the mix to muddy the waters – but that’s part of what these journals pay and charge for. Prestigious peers. To review papers.
now, are they fair prices for knowledge that helps us all is another debate, but suffice to say: going “fuck you I’m gonna find out if you’re wrong” is literally part of the job.
Are you just, like… not that bright? Or is this just a transient phase, a hard night for you?
the problem with this is you wrote an epic takedown. it took you so much more time and effort that the pigshit you replied to.
this world isn’t fair.
but you deserve more, you nailed it
it’s not about a takedown, really, I’m not trying to be mean (not especially hard, anyways), I just want to understand what Nature, or science as a whole, did to piss them off enough to make shit up about it. Or if they’re just having a bad day they oughta just say so.
Citation needed
Because the journal is so highly respected, half the papers are wrong?
What
I’m a researcher. Nature is good but it still has mistakes. Sometimes they are a tad sloppy but they are still far, far better than what you may know from popular science. In general, some mistakes are normal and expected because science works by finding and fixing mistakes, not by immediately discovering ultimate truth. This applies even in math.
I can agree with that. And I’m sure it’s because letters on the forefront are published quickly without time to consider all the possible problems.
tell me you have never read a Nature published piece, without saying you have never read a scientific paper
Yeah that’s just stupid