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?
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
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%.
…
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?
tell me you have never read a Nature published piece, without saying you have never read a scientific paper
Yeah that’s just stupid