Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Critique of [I]Nature[/I] and [I]Science[/I]

  • 06-05-2004 7:41am
    #1
    TomF
    Closed Accounts Posts: 645 ✭✭✭


    Here are two excerpts from a recent posting that complains about the quality of Nature and Science. It appears at <http://www.techcentralstation.com/050504H.html>.

    "A new paper (1) appearing today in the journal Nature purports to solve the long standing 'problem' of the satellite-based global temperature record not showing much warming over the last 25 years (only +0.085 deg C/decade -- about a third of what is expected from climate models for the troposphere). Instead, all it does is help answer the question: 'is the quality of peer review in the popular science journals getting worse?' (The answer is 'yes.')
    ...
    "I will admit to being uneasy about airing scientific dirty laundry in an op-ed. But as long as these popular science journals insist on putting news value ahead of science, then I have little choice. The damage has already been done. A paper claiming to falsify our satellite temperature record has been published in the 'peer reviewed' literature, and the resulting news reports will never be taken back. This is one reason increasing numbers of scientists regard Science and Nature as 'gray' scientific literature. "

    1. Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren, and D.J. Seidel, 2004: Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature, 429, 55-58.


Comments

  • #2
    dictatorcat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 211 ✭✭dictatorcat


    They may be "grey" scientific litrature, but they still have the highest impact factors which is what counts. Admittedly i'm rather peaved by the way biology is seen as a priority (something to do with their advertising revenue me thinks!) while physics and chemisrty mearly get lip service with 4 or 5 articles between them per issue.


  • #3
    planck2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 242 ✭✭planck2


    Most articles on physics get printed in the physical review journals


  • #4
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    I only read Science and Nature for information and entertainment, not as serious scientific journals. Any really decent physics or other science, will, or should, be published in the appropriate well-respected journal for its field

    I also get very sick sometimes of the emphasis that they place on the biological sciences, even though I suppose that these days that is the cutting edge of science.


Advertisement