Tony BarkRFK Jr.’s health department calls Nature “junk science,” cancels subscriptions
compostgoblinI 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?
CatoblepasYeah, getting published in Nature is a career gold star achievement. They’re very high impact (meaning many other scientific papers cite their articles).
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
Dogiedog64Got 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%.
archonetbut 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”. One involves being in the journal.
I think we found RFKs lemmy account