[Osmium]

> calling Nature (Nature!) an "online sensational clickbait magazine"

Not far from the truth, talking as someone who is in the field. Unlike Science, which is published by AAAS, a non-profit, Nature is a for-profit publication. They have an incentive not to miss out on something huge so that they can retain their status as the place to go for big results, but this also means they have an incentive towards selecting more sensational research for publication. That doesn't mean that research published in Nature is bad--often it is excellent--and I'm sure their editorial staff sincerely try their best, but they often make quite bizarre editorial decisions (personal opinion).

That said, Nature attracts far more scrutiny than other journals because of their ability to make and break careers, so many people feel resentment towards them as a result. Not all criticism of Nature is entirely fair.

No comment on this particular story :)

[dmarchand90]

The important thing to understand is that only the scientific publications in Nature matter. These articles are written by world-class scientists and are taken very seriously. In contrast, the journalism section is akin to any random newspaper. It is generally written by standard journalists and is intended for a mass audience.

[hilbert42]

Even if the hype over LK-99 comes to nothing it became evident to me several days ago that this research has likely changed scientific publishing permanently—and I'd almost bet on the fact if the research is confirmed.

What made this a such a huge tech event with the world watching on was that the research was on a subject that has captured the imagination of both scientists and the lay public for many decades and that it was posted on arxiv.org website which is open and copyright-free, similarly, we witnessed peer review processes also occurring out in the open and in public for all to see—and essentially in real time! Contrast this with the traditional tech journal process, Nature, Science, IEEE Proceedings, The Lancet, etc. which takes months to publish, and is a closed process not to mention papers being the whim of editors who often reject them (and sometimes very significant ones at that).

Irrespective of whatever outcome eventuates, the contrast between traditional, slow and now-very-expensive scientific publishing with that of this speedy, exciting, open and participatory model that's copyright-free will be obvious to everyone.

Moreover, this is happening at a time when the traditional for-profit scientific publishing has come under enormous criticism with Elsevier and others milking the university and scientific establishments to breaking point and the rise of Sci-Hub as a countermeasure. Whilst academics have been aware of the problem for quite some time the general public has not. This research and how it played out on arxiv.org in just two weeks won't be forgotten easily.

If I were a director of Elsevier and after witnessing what's happened in less than two weeks I'd be damn worried.

[MPSimmons]

>It is generally written by standard journalists

It may be, I don't know. This particular journalist has an undergraduate degree in Physics from Columbia - https://dangaristo.com/about/

That's not exactly subject-matter expertise, but it's also not a standard journalist.

[wolverine876]

> intended for a mass audience

Nature markets it to a mass audience? A mass audience reads Nature?

[nonethewiser]

Ah yes. So put Nature’s name on it for credibility but insist it doesnt reflect on Nature’s reputation.

[lyapunova]

I hate to say it, but I agree. Nature has outlived its "legit" branding by leaning too hard into the "product" realm. Most scientists don't want their fundamental work to be sold as a product unless it is a precursor to commercialization of their work. At that point, it becomes advertising rather than science.

When I see Nature pubs, I tend to enjoy the aesthetics of the articles, but discount them a bit to account for the mainstream-ness.

[LordDragonfang]

Yeah, I was going to say. I've seen so many (usually legitimate) criticisms aimed at Nature dot com in the past year alone that I saw the domain immediately disregarded the possibility that this should affect my opinions one way or the other.

[alpineidyll3]

... I once had someone in publishing try to offer me nature acceptance in exchange for ... things. The outsized role of these journals in the scientific community when reviews could be done in the open is pretty messed up.

[wolverine876]

>> calling Nature (Nature!) an "online sensational clickbait magazine"

> Not far from the truth

It's very far from the truth; nothing is perfect, but Nature isn't some SEO clickbait. This subthread shows that the reactionary takedowns of everything now even are taking down Nature, of course. They've already discredited much of science, and have a lot of blood on their hands (climate change and vaccines stand out).

[dclowd9901]

> but they often make quite bizarre editorial decisions (personal opinion).

Off-topic, but if this opinion you wrote wasn’t yours, then who else’s opinion were we to assume it would have been?