Comment by EForEndeavour | Hacker News Reader

Comment by EForEndeavour | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think nitpicking is the wrong call here. Dwelling on the fact that Nature and Nature Communications are two different journals obstinately misses the point that Nature Comms explicitly "rides on the coattails" of Nature, in that they are inextricably part of the Nature brand.

They can't have it both ways. If being a journal parallel to and under the same org as the journal Nature is supposed to make Nature Communications look better, then low-quality content in Nature Communications necessarily erodes the Nature brand of which they are a very deliberate part.

Again, Andrew Gelman put it succinctly:

> The paper is published at nature.com. Nature Communications is an extension of the Nature brand. Reputational inference goes both ways. By giving this journal the Nature name, they’re leveraging the Nature brand. The converse is that if the new journal published a paper with serious flaws, the Nature brand loses.

It's not nitpicking even though it might seem that way to someone who doesn't deal with these journals regularly. The two are so wildly different that making sure you are clear about the difference is quite important.

I've published in Nature Photonics for instance and if I listed it as a Nature paper on my CV then I would be lying. Any potential employer would also see that as an intentional misrepresentation (given how prestigious Nature is and how "normal" Nature Photonics is) and end the hiring process right there.

It's annoying that they took the name, but they are still literally two different journals. Saying that this questionable paper was published in the super prestigious journal Nature which is well known for desk rejecting most manuscripts is misleading and incorrect. It was really published in a much more commonplace journal.

It's important because I would be hugely surprised if it was accepted into Nature (and would be a much bigger story). Not so much for Nature Communications.

Whether or not Nature is tarnishing its name with these offshoots is a different story completely, but it is still true and an important distinction that the article was not published in Nature proper. It's to the point where I think most practicing scientists would know to look for whether it was Nature Nature (as one of our lab techs says) or some other derivative.

The story is that egregiously bad science was published in a Nature journal.

> here’s the paper, which is published in Nature, that famous scientific tabloid

Then they can say that themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com