5 ms·

This was a Comment (dated October 2018), not a paper.

• Rochus 6y ago
  So Nature publishes comments without reviewing them?
  • spiorf 6y ago
    That assumption is wrong. Take it as a single data point about the reliability of their peer review process. EDIT: I really mean that is a single data point. A usually reputable publisher can make mistake sometimes.
    • jevgeni 6y ago
      If you are suggesting to make inference from a single data point, you kind of proving the necessity of peer review.
      • spiorf 6y ago
        I was suggesting the opposite.
  • jevgeni 6y ago
    Yes, see, here we have respect for science only if a) it is our specific field, or b) fits average tech bro sensibilities. Obviously, we are completely objective and not emotional or biased, because we know JavaScript.
  • vntok 6y ago
    It very much seems like they do, doesn't it?
• gus_massa 6y ago
  Also, it was not published in "Nature", it was published in "Nature Climate Change". Now "Nature" (the publisher) has many journals, and many of them has a name that starts with "Nature", but they are different journals, with different teams and different qualities. https://www.nature.com/siteindex#journals-N https://www.nature.com/siteindex#journals-N