Nature News: Surprising Findings in 2004

  • Thread starter Thread starter flashgordon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nature News
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a Nature News article from 2004, which presents findings that have garnered significant attention in the physics community. Participants express interest in the implications of the article and the accessibility of the underlying data, as well as the broader context of theoretical discussions in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the article's significance but questions the ability to comment meaningfully without access to the data.
  • Another participant suggests that some theorists may be charging for their insights, which they view as problematic and potentially detrimental to scientific discourse.
  • There is mention of contractual obligations that authors may have with major scientific societies, which could influence the dissemination of their views.
  • Participants reference the AJL paper related to the article, indicating it has been discussed extensively in other forums.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the article and the practices surrounding access to theoretical insights. There is no consensus on the appropriateness of charging for access to scientific opinions or the impact of such practices on the field.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in accessing data and the influence of contractual obligations on the sharing of scientific information, but these aspects remain unresolved.

flashgordon
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I seen this couple of days ago, but there is little point in commenting unless one can access the data?..seems that some Theoreticians want a payment for expressing their views, this is having some grave consequences within certain scientific fields.

Here in the UK this is deemed to be 'egotistical practice', I see it as more than likely the authors have contractual liabilities by big-time societies, such as AJP.
 
flashgordon said:
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/041004-17.html

Well, I havn't been to these messageboards in . . . awhile, so maybe I don't know if everybody here has seen this.

I guess I'm just posting it; comment if you'd like!

This is the AJL paper which has been commented on in the Strings, Branes and LQG forum. The paper has attracted a LOT of attention in the Physics community.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
12K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K