5 ms·
Consider submitting this feedback to Nature. It’s generally a reliable source. I’d be curious to see how they respond to your review.
by jimmont 4y ago
Consider submitting this feedback to Nature. It’s generally a reliable source. I’d be curious to see how they respond to your review.
- fock 4y agoYou know this is published in Nature ... Scientific Reports. And there goes the reliability!
- schiffern 4y agoNote that this journal is Scientific Reports (a Nature Portfolio journal), not Nature. Confusing I know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports > Scientific Reports is an online peer-reviewed open access scientific mega journal published by Nature Portfolio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_journal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_journal > A mega journal (also mega-journal and megajournal) is a peer-reviewed academic open access journal designed to be much larger than a traditional journal by exercising low selectivity among accepted articles. It was pioneered by PLOS ONE. This "very lucrative publishing model" was soon emulated by other publishers. Basically it's bunk-for-hire.
- someotherperson 4y agoThe domain is a bit misleading. It's not Nature, it's Scientific Reports, and it's not exactly a great journal[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports#Controversi...