3 ms·
OK, first...Science News is trash. Absolute trash. Maybe it's better than e.g. the current NY Times Science reporter (who is so incompetent that it's mind-blowi
by timr 3y ago
OK, first...Science News is trash. Absolute trash. Maybe it's better than e.g. the current NY Times Science reporter (who is so incompetent that it's mind-blowing), but it's still just not worth reading, except maybe on the toilet. They can (and do) say nonsensical stuff all the time.
(edit: I just realized that you might be suggesting that "News" in the quote refers only to "Science News". I don't agree, but even if so, it doesn't change anything about my argument. If you are editor-in-chief of a scientific journal, you shouldn't be delegating your analysis to reporters, no matter where they work. If you aren't experienced/knowledgable enough to see why a paper is important from the work in front of you, give it to someone who can. And if you don't want to do that, then reject it.)
- sxcurry 3y agoWell, I don’t agree with your opinion of Science News, but that’s OK. What I was pointing out is that she was indeed referring to Science News (and also Science Perspectives) as sources for her reading and understanding of a paper.
- timr 3y agoMaybe that was implied by the capitalization of "News", but regardless, it's the same argument. Reporters are not scientsts. The whole thing is like a hilarious public announcement that the editor in chief of Science has Gell-Mann Amnesia.
- jamilton 3y agoIf I'm interpreting it right, no, it's not the same argument. It sounds like she said she basically checks if it's been talked about in Science besides as an existing paper. Seems reasonably for a publication to consider it's own standards of publishing as good enough. Science reporters are probably, hopefully, scientifically literate.
- timr 3y agoScience News (the one in Science magazine) is written by journalists.