3 ms·
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 be
by 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 agoThe 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 agoHmm. Sounds like they suck at even basic technical review, or at least did in 2016.