6 ms·

Uhm, Nature Communications is a subjournal of Nature Publishing Group. There is literally no more reputable publishing group. None. Nature, their flagship journ

Uhm, Nature Communications is a subjournal of Nature Publishing Group. There is literally no more reputable publishing group. None. Nature, their flagship journal, is the highest impact factor journal in the world.

scott_s 11y ago
I upvoted you, but I want to add text in agreement since such upvotes can't be seen as an endorsement. gavman's warning about the reputation of the venue is unwarranted.
- gavman 11y ago
  I talked to my apartment mate about it. He said that when he showed the article to his advisor, she had the reaction of "they're pay to publish". I can't speak to the reputability of the journal, just providing his response.
  - hiddencost 11y ago
    EDIT: sounds like a misunderstanding more than anything. Here's [0] a link to the rankings of nature journals. Nature Communications is 3rd in general science, and Nature is 1st. Tim Gowers and the freedom of knowledge group are pushing hard on journal fees. [0]http://www.nature.com/npg_/company_info/impact_factors.html http://www.nature.com/npg_/company_info/impact_factors.html Old post : I can speak to the reputability of your friend's program. The statement is jaw dropping. It is so wrong as to make it hard for me to believe he goes to an accredited university.
    - gavman 11y ago
      As I said in a comment below, he's at a top tier program (CMU), so it's likely I didn't understand his adverse reaction. You mention below his/his advisor's adverse reaction may be about "a movement to move to no cost journals", not about reputation. When I see him tonight I'll ask.
logicrook 11y ago
Many top researchers have a grudge against the shortcomings of Nature, especially given its reputation. They published papers with fairly weak research for overhype many times already. One example is the infamous Barabasi-Albert paper on the preferential attachment. It contains many false claims, bad math and extraordinary assertions that would be excusable in some vulgarization for TV, much less for a research paper. They could at least have upped the paper before publication. There are many much worse examples, that you can find on retractionwatch.com among other places.
dnautics 11y ago
Nature is not that reputable, I'd put it above science, below JACS. The most reputable journals are cell, and organic syntheses. If you want to know why org. Syn. is so reputable, check out their description: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses
- ascorbic 11y ago
  That's ridiculous. It's the world's most cited scientific journal. Your opinion doesn't make it disreputable.
  - dnautics 11y ago
    You are confusing reputability with a metric of popularity.

scott_s 11y ago

I upvoted you, but I want to add text in agreement since such upvotes can't be seen as an endorsement. gavman's warning about the reputation of the venue is unwarranted.

gavman 11y ago
I talked to my apartment mate about it. He said that when he showed the article to his advisor, she had the reaction of "they're pay to publish". I can't speak to the reputability of the journal, just providing his response.
- hiddencost 11y ago
  EDIT: sounds like a misunderstanding more than anything. Here's [0] a link to the rankings of nature journals. Nature Communications is 3rd in general science, and Nature is 1st. Tim Gowers and the freedom of knowledge group are pushing hard on journal fees. [0]http://www.nature.com/npg_/company_info/impact_factors.html http://www.nature.com/npg_/company_info/impact_factors.html Old post : I can speak to the reputability of your friend's program. The statement is jaw dropping. It is so wrong as to make it hard for me to believe he goes to an accredited university.
  - gavman 11y ago
    As I said in a comment below, he's at a top tier program (CMU), so it's likely I didn't understand his adverse reaction. You mention below his/his advisor's adverse reaction may be about "a movement to move to no cost journals", not about reputation. When I see him tonight I'll ask.

logicrook 11y ago

Many top researchers have a grudge against the shortcomings of Nature, especially given its reputation. They published papers with fairly weak research for overhype many times already. One example is the infamous Barabasi-Albert paper on the preferential attachment. It contains many false claims, bad math and extraordinary assertions that would be excusable in some vulgarization for TV, much less for a research paper. They could at least have upped the paper before publication. There are many much worse examples, that you can find on retractionwatch.com among other places.

dnautics 11y ago

Nature is not that reputable, I'd put it above science, below JACS. The most reputable journals are cell, and organic syntheses. If you want to know why org. Syn. is so reputable, check out their description: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses

ascorbic 11y ago
That's ridiculous. It's the world's most cited scientific journal. Your opinion doesn't make it disreputable.
- dnautics 11y ago
  You are confusing reputability with a metric of popularity.