3 ms·

I subscribed to Nature magazine, and I don't see that it ,,sucks so much''. The answer is simple: you get what you pay for. Also there are lots of high quality

I subscribed to Nature magazine, and I don't see that it ,,sucks so much''. The answer is simple: you get what you pay for. Also there are lots of high quality youtube channels for any specific area of science...some of my favourites: - Everyday Astronout (his interviews with Elon were awesome) - CrisprTalk (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8TW2xKYRqbLvfGaT783WQA/videos)... a retired guy with lots of lab experience going through clinical trial results, investing in CRISPR stocks and bashing ARK invest's stock picks - Modern Healthspan interview with Gregory Fahy (the channel has lots of other interesting videos, but I'm less interested in supplements and more about future research reversing aging). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x_OTIP7kjo&list=PLkfzM7KJv6vY68Fvw1g7l9vN9NqhW7Fay

davrosthedalek 4y ago
Nature and Science took a big hit in my personal rating because they allow/encourage the publication of reviewer names for accepted papers. I think this will corrupt the review process in the long run. In addition with their clear money making agenda and limited preprint compatibility (this might have changed), I strongly prefer Physics Review Letters.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Why I am highly critical of Nature (and to somewhat lesser degree of Science) I do believe the review process needs much more transparency. I am not yet convinced that making reviews public will make much difference to the better, however saying it will corrupt the review process is completely missing how broken the process is right now, in particular for these high-impact journals. Some copernicus journals [1] (I have no association, never even published there) seem to follow some interesting ideas. [1] https://publications.copernicus.org/open-access_journals/journals_by_subject.html https://publications.copernicus.org/open-access_journals/jou...
  - davrosthedalek 4y ago
    I don't think it's that broken in nuclear physics. sure there are bad reviewers, but it's on the editors to sort that out. But opening the door to "that reviewer reviewed us favorably, so we have to do the same" is not good. Edit: Can only speak of nuclear physics.

davrosthedalek 4y ago

Nature and Science took a big hit in my personal rating because they allow/encourage the publication of reviewer names for accepted papers. I think this will corrupt the review process in the long run. In addition with their clear money making agenda and limited preprint compatibility (this might have changed), I strongly prefer Physics Review Letters.

cycomanic 4y ago
Why I am highly critical of Nature (and to somewhat lesser degree of Science) I do believe the review process needs much more transparency. I am not yet convinced that making reviews public will make much difference to the better, however saying it will corrupt the review process is completely missing how broken the process is right now, in particular for these high-impact journals. Some copernicus journals [1] (I have no association, never even published there) seem to follow some interesting ideas. [1] https://publications.copernicus.org/open-access_journals/journals_by_subject.html https://publications.copernicus.org/open-access_journals/jou...
- davrosthedalek 4y ago
  I don't think it's that broken in nuclear physics. sure there are bad reviewers, but it's on the editors to sort that out. But opening the door to "that reviewer reviewed us favorably, so we have to do the same" is not good. Edit: Can only speak of nuclear physics.