Is Nature the Most Reputable Science Journal in World?

[kyphysics]

As I've stated many times before, I was a social science major in college, so this is not my thing. . .I ask, because I've seen it referred to that way by sources I cannot verify (random internet chat). Figured I could get quick answer here that is trustworthy.

I also ask, because I'll occasionally come across an article on COVID, evolution, etc. that I am interested in (topically) that is posted there and wonder how trustworthy it is.

Thanks. Really, just a quick yes/no by a bunch of people is fine. No need to expound (unless you want to). If I see overwhelming yes's or no's, then I'll know.

 

[Office_Shredder]

So if it's the second most reputable journal, you want everyone to post no?

 

[kyphysics]

So if it's the second most reputable journal, you want everyone to post no?

I figured people would think in terms of ballpark.

 

[Borek]

It is about as reputable as a science journal can be. That still means occasional blunders.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Nature is certainly one of the more prestigious journals in many fields of science. However, it is important to distinguish the journal Nature from other journals published by the for profit company that owns Nature. I often see people on this forum mistake papers published in other journals as papers in Nature (since they all share the same www.nature.com url). Many of these journals are also very prestigious (I've published in a number of them), though others are much less selective about what they publish. In some cases, papers in the second tier of Nature journals (e.g. Nature Methods, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Cell Biology, etc) may be more reliable than papers published in Nature, since Nature tends to focus on publishing science on the cutting edge (where mistakes may be more likely).

In general, however, all of the journals published by the Nature Research publisher undergo peer review to weed out obviously bad papers (unlike predatory publishing groups).

 

[f95toli]

I also ask, because I'll occasionally come across an article on COVID, evolution, etc. that I am interested in

Firstly, you need to differentiate between the articles (including news) that are written by the journalists that work for Nature and the papers they publish which are written by the scientists that did the work. The former is usually of very high quality and people who write them typically have a background in that field, meaning they tend to be much better than average for science journalism.
When it comes to the latter there isn't really a difference between a paper published in Nature and a large number of other good journals. Nature uses a rather stringent review process with several reviewers (I think they typically use 4) but that is not unique in any way. A paper does not get published in Nature because it is more "correct" than a paper published elsewhere, it gets accepted because it is "high impact" and/or of interest to a wide audience.
That said, in the past few years Nature and a few other "rich" journals have also invested quite a bit in techniques for detecting fraud (manipulated data etc) which is of course a good thing; most smaller journals do not have the resources needed to do this.

 

[kyphysics]

Nature is certainly one of the more prestigious journals in many fields of science. However, it is important to distinguish the journal Nature from other journals published by the for profit company that owns Nature. I often see people on this forum mistake papers published in other journals as papers in Nature (since they all share the same www.nature.com url). Many of these journals are also very prestigious (I've published in a number of them), though others are much less selective about what they publish. In some cases, papers in the second tier of Nature journals (e.g. Nature Methods, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Cell Biology, etc) may be more reliable than papers published in Nature, since Nature tends to focus on publishing science on the cutting edge (where mistakes may be more likely).

In general, however, all of the journals published by the Nature Research publisher undergo peer review to weed out obviously bad papers (unlike predatory publishing groups).

Hmmm, what about something like this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02972-4

It's got the nature.com address and discusses COVID. It's not a scientific, but rather more of a "journalistic" (?) piece, I think.

 

[kyphysics]

Firstly, you need to differentiate between the articles (including news) that are written by the journalists that work for Nature and the papers they publish which are written by the scientists that did the work. The former is usually of very high quality and people who write them typically have a background in that field, meaning they tend to be much better than average for science journalism.
When it comes to the latter there isn't really a difference between a paper published in Nature and a large number of other good journals. Nature uses a rather stringent review process with several reviewers (I think they typically use 4) but that is not unique in any way. A paper does not get published in Nature because it is more "correct" than a paper published elsewhere, it gets accepted because it is "high impact" and/or of interest to a wide audience.

Thanks. I literally just asked about this distinction above. lol. Read my mind.

In regards to the more scientific pieces (not the general audience journalistic ones), is there really not much more of a "prestige" factor even for those? I was under the impression that these were also of very high regard and were vetted/reviewed in a way such that they only accept both good scientific work and important work (consequential to the field). Do they not have this "higher" standard than most journals?

 

[HAYAO]

It's definitely one of the most prestigious journals in my area too (physical chemistry/chemical physics). Getting published in their second-tier journals is still quite prestigious in my opinion.

That being said, anything other than their actual research articles can be quite politicized. I usually don't read them and even if you do, you should take it with a grain of salt.

 

[DrClaude]

Hmmm, what about something like this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02972-4

It's got the nature.com address and discusses COVID. It's not a scientific, but rather more of a "journalistic" (?) piece, I think.

Yes, this is obviously a journalistic piece. There are quotes from different researchers presenting their opinion. But contrary to newspaper articles, it does have 5 references to scientific papers.

 

[kyphysics]

That being said, anything other than their actual research articles can be quite politicized. I usually don't read them and even if you do, you should take it with a grain of salt.

If true, that's interesting. Being a non-sciency person, I'd probably not be able to even tell.

Any thoughts on Scientific American?

 

[HAYAO]

Scientific American is a science magazine, not an academic journal. Basically, it has no research articles, but rather some layman targeted brief summary of certain research, as well as articles written by journalists.

 

[kyphysics]

Yeah, I meant their journalism with regard to being politicized.

 

[f95toli]

Yeah, I meant their journalism with regard to being politicized.

These days you can always find people who will consider anything written "political". I would not consider the vast majority of the articles the journalists at Nature or Science write to be political in any way (unless you consider being being pro-science to be political) but there are obviously people who disagree.
The exception would be opinion pieces which typically deals with science policy, but they are clearly labelled.

Also, do keep in mind that Nature is based in the UK (although they have journalists all over the world). Some issues which would be considered neutral here simply because they are so widely accepted (say global warming) could of course be considered to be political if you are in the USA or Brazil.