4 ms·

Ouch, Nature publishing pop science. A few years ago my PhD/Academia Engineer path cousin validated if a study was 'real' by simply looking at the word Nature.

Ouch, Nature publishing pop science. A few years ago my PhD/Academia Engineer path cousin validated if a study was 'real' by simply looking at the word Nature. I thought this was absurd and scrolled down to methods/data. I had never heard of Nature before, or rather, I had no reason to trust it. I find it interesting/unfortunate Academia can get away with being Authority based.

azinman2 3y ago
There’s no reason to throw away authority. Should something be not questioned because it was published in Nature? No, of course not. But should it be given the benefit of doubt? For sure. It’s extremely difficult to publish in nature, with a super rigorous process behind it. Peoples careers are made by publishing in such a journal, and extremely few are so lucky. Not all journals or researchers are equal. Reputation is an important filter. In the very long run truth will emerge. In the short term, however, it’s one of our best signals.
- resource_waste 3y ago
  >There’s no reason to throw away authority The Catholic Church appreciates your confidence. Science weeps.
woooooo 3y ago
Everyone uses heuristics to save time and attention. In theory, being published in a top journal means multiple specialists in the subject matter reviewed the paper and therefore it's more trustworthy than a random authority's assertion.
- resource_waste 3y ago
  That is the conventional thing they taught us in school. Reality is more Yikes.
fnordian_slip 3y ago
As krastanov pointed out in the comment above you, "Scientific Reports" is not the same as publishing in "Nature" itself. But about your cousin's method: If you have never heard of "Nature" even though it is one of the biggest names out there, then you have no reason to trust it, of course. On the other hand, if you have already read hundreds of papers published by them in your field, and those were above average in quality, trusting that name does make a lot of sense imho.

azinman2 3y ago

There’s no reason to throw away authority. Should something be not questioned because it was published in Nature? No, of course not. But should it be given the benefit of doubt? For sure. It’s extremely difficult to publish in nature, with a super rigorous process behind it. Peoples careers are made by publishing in such a journal, and extremely few are so lucky. Not all journals or researchers are equal. Reputation is an important filter. In the very long run truth will emerge. In the short term, however, it’s one of our best signals.

resource_waste 3y ago
>There’s no reason to throw away authority The Catholic Church appreciates your confidence. Science weeps.

woooooo 3y ago

Everyone uses heuristics to save time and attention. In theory, being published in a top journal means multiple specialists in the subject matter reviewed the paper and therefore it's more trustworthy than a random authority's assertion.

resource_waste 3y ago
That is the conventional thing they taught us in school. Reality is more Yikes.

fnordian_slip 3y ago

As krastanov pointed out in the comment above you, "Scientific Reports" is not the same as publishing in "Nature" itself. But about your cousin's method: If you have never heard of "Nature" even though it is one of the biggest names out there, then you have no reason to trust it, of course. On the other hand, if you have already read hundreds of papers published by them in your field, and those were above average in quality, trusting that name does make a lot of sense imho.