• Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah, getting published in Nature is a career gold star achievement. They’re very high impact (meaning many other scientific papers cite their articles).

    • Balthazar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.

        • Balthazar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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%.

          • archonet@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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?