Hacker News Reader

Well yeah, obviously: high risk, high reward. Without the benefit of hindsight (and subsequent tests), a paper that proposes something truly transformative will look a lot like one that is just wrong (albeit, wrong in a creative/novel way). If you want to publish the former, you're going to have to take a lot of risks and publish a lot of duds. Don't we complain all the time that NSF doesn't fund high-risk science?

View on HN

That isn't what is going on. The stuff that gets published in the "tabloids" (Nature, Science, PNAS, etc) is sloppier.

I don't know your field, but that hasn't really been my experience at all. Just about as much sloppiness all the way across the board.

My only systematic complaint here is that short format means much of the substance has to go in an inconvenient supplement, but that's hardly unique to Nature and Science.

The supplements have vastly improved the situation. There is no denying that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com