3 ms·
Nature's own publication: Scientific Reports is also suspect. https://www.nature.com/srep/ https://www.nature.com/srep/ More about Scientific Reports controver
by nabla9 6y ago
Nature's own publication: Scientific Reports is also suspect. https://www.nature.com/srep/ https://www.nature.com/srep/
More about Scientific Reports controversies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports
- caddemon 6y agoInteresting that the journal claims to judge only on scientific process and not impact, which sounds like a good idea for publishing negative results and replications and such, but then they wind up publishing some really outrageous claims like a paper supporting homeopathy. Seems like the opposite of the stated goal, but I guess they can make more money by publishing straight up bad science instead of staying true to their mission statement. That controversies page was surprisingly entertaining overall though, I have to say. Clearly the authors don't even take the journal seriously: "The face of Donald Trump was hidden in an image of baboon feces in a paper published in 2018. The journal later removed the image."
- nabla9 6y agoScientific Reports is very common source of HN posts. People see only the domain name nature.com and think it's quality source.