Not The Onion

17086 readers

643 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

567

RFK Jr.’s health department calls Nature “junk science,” cancels subscriptions (arstechnica.com)

submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 115 points 5 days ago (20 children)

I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Nature and its subject-specific varieties considered some of the most reputable and prestigious scientific publications?

[–] [email protected] 89 points 5 days ago (17 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (16 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 45 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Got evidence for that bold claim?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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%.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 5 days ago

Ok, so you got nothing, and you're talking out of your ass. Great, thanks. Go outside.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

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?

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)