549
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
549 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
20580 readers
886 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, getting published in Nature is a career gold star achievement. They’re very high impact (meaning many other scientific papers cite their articles).
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
I’m dying at the irony of claiming 50% of all Nature articles are wrong while also providing literally no evidence
Got evidence for that bold claim?
Anecdotal only, sorry. I'm sure it varies by field, and it's more about letters than longer papers. There are probably fields where Nature is excellent, but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.
Ok, so you got nothing, and you're talking out of your ass. Great, thanks. Go outside.
Citation needed
I'm a researcher. Nature is good but it still has mistakes. Sometimes they are a tad sloppy but they are still far, far better than what you may know from popular science. In general, some mistakes are normal and expected because science works by finding and fixing mistakes, not by immediately discovering ultimate truth. This applies even in math.
I can agree with that. And I'm sure it's because letters on the forefront are published quickly without time to consider all the possible problems.
tell me you have never read a Nature published piece, without saying you have never read a scientific paper
Doubtful.
That said, you're kind of just describing how peer review works, no?
Yeah that's just stupid
Even if true (which I doubt since you present no evidence) that's still a 50% better error rate than RFK Jr and his band of cranks and quacks.