4 ms·

Nature Scientific Reports has very light peer-review. If you pay the fee, they publish with high probability. >Manuscripts are not assessed based on their perc

Nature Scientific Reports has very light peer-review. If you pay the fee, they publish with high probability. >Manuscripts are not assessed based on their perceived importance, significance or impact https://www.nature.com/srep/guide-to-referees#criteria https://www.nature.com/srep/guide-to-referees#criteria

sxg 4y ago
I've published two papers in Scientific Reports and have had several more rejected—definitely not my experience. Peer review was arduous and on par with any other major journal with similar impact factor.
- Nokinside 4y ago
  The acceptance rate for Scientific Reports is 55%.
civilized 4y ago
Not accurate. There are journals that try to evaluate impact and there are journals that focus purely on scientific validity. (PLOS One is a journal that has become famous for doing the latter.) The passage you quote is just the journal signaling that it's in the second camp. It doesn't mean the peer review is any lighter than at impact-focused journals. It's a good thing for science that not all journals are impact chasers. Scientists are by definition not perfectly reliable evaluators of impact, because science is about exploring the unknown. Publishing work that's only passed a technically focused peer review allows for unexpected impact.
- Nokinside 4y ago
  The acceptance rate is >50% and it lets lots of fake and pseudoscience trough. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/more-scientific-reports-and-faked-papers https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/more-scientific-re.... >It's a good thing for science Maybe, but we should treat them like arXiv.org type e-Print archive. People are posting them to HN and thinking that because it's Nature.com site it's solid science.
  - civilized 4y ago
    Hmm. Sounds like they suck at even basic technical review, or at least did in 2016.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

sxg 4y ago

I've published two papers in Scientific Reports and have had several more rejected—definitely not my experience. Peer review was arduous and on par with any other major journal with similar impact factor.

Nokinside 4y ago
The acceptance rate for Scientific Reports is 55%.

civilized 4y ago

Not accurate. There are journals that try to evaluate impact and there are journals that focus purely on scientific validity. (PLOS One is a journal that has become famous for doing the latter.) The passage you quote is just the journal signaling that it's in the second camp. It doesn't mean the peer review is any lighter than at impact-focused journals. It's a good thing for science that not all journals are impact chasers. Scientists are by definition not perfectly reliable evaluators of impact, because science is about exploring the unknown. Publishing work that's only passed a technically focused peer review allows for unexpected impact.

Nokinside 4y ago
The acceptance rate is >50% and it lets lots of fake and pseudoscience trough. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/more-scientific-reports-and-faked-papers https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/more-scientific-re.... >It's a good thing for science Maybe, but we should treat them like arXiv.org type e-Print archive. People are posting them to HN and thinking that because it's Nature.com site it's solid science.
- civilized 4y ago
  Hmm. Sounds like they suck at even basic technical review, or at least did in 2016.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]