[Osmium]

> calling Nature (Nature!) an "online sensational clickbait magazine"

Not far from the truth, talking as someone who is in the field. Unlike Science, which is published by AAAS, a non-profit, Nature is a for-profit publication. They have an incentive not to miss out on something huge so that they can retain their status as the place to go for big results, but this also means they have an incentive towards selecting more sensational research for publication. That doesn't mean that research published in Nature is bad--often it is excellent--and I'm sure their editorial staff sincerely try their best, but they often make quite bizarre editorial decisions (personal opinion).

That said, Nature attracts far more scrutiny than other journals because of their ability to make and break careers, so many people feel resentment towards them as a result. Not all criticism of Nature is entirely fair.

No comment on this particular story :)

[dmarchand90]

The important thing to understand is that only the scientific publications in Nature matter. These articles are written by world-class scientists and are taken very seriously. In contrast, the journalism section is akin to any random newspaper. It is generally written by standard journalists and is intended for a mass audience.

[hilbert42]

Even if the hype over LK-99 comes to nothing it became evident to me several days ago that this research has likely changed scientific publishing permanently—and I'd almost bet on the fact if the research is confirmed.

What made this a such a huge tech event with the world watching on was that the research was on a subject that has captured the imagination of both scientists and the lay public for many decades and that it was posted on arxiv.org website which is open and copyright-free, similarly, we witnessed peer review processes also occurring out in the open and in public for all to see—and essentially in real time! Contrast this with the traditional tech journal process, Nature, Science, IEEE Proceedings, The Lancet, etc. which takes months to publish, and is a closed process not to mention papers being the whim of editors who often reject them (and sometimes very significant ones at that).

Irrespective of whatever outcome eventuates, the contrast between traditional, slow and now-very-expensive scientific publishing with that of this speedy, exciting, open and participatory model that's copyright-free will be obvious to everyone.

Moreover, this is happening at a time when the traditional for-profit scientific publishing has come under enormous criticism with Elsevier and others milking the university and scientific establishments to breaking point and the rise of Sci-Hub as a countermeasure. Whilst academics have been aware of the problem for quite some time the general public has not. This research and how it played out on arxiv.org in just two weeks won't be forgotten easily.

If I were a director of Elsevier and after witnessing what's happened in less than two weeks I'd be damn worried.

[jacquesm]

This puts Nature's position here as on display in TFA (they don't have to publish everything that is sent in) in a different light. There might be an element of sour grapes here, and if the research is validated then it will have a huge impact on them.

[dekhn]

This isn't "Nature's position". This is a freelance science writer's position, and they paid him for the article. Nature wouldn't even weigh in with a real editorial opinion at this point.

[jacquesm]

It is their name on the masthead. If they don't agree with it they shouldn't publish it. Doing this 'at arms length' allows them to have this under their banner while at the same time being able to say 'that wasn't us'.

[dekhn]

This is standard practice in journalism which is widely used.

If you weren't so involved in the field, would you even care?

[progrus]

Nature certainly would not platform my position on this one. Why would they choose this other person?

Why can I tell you what it says without even reading the headline?

[nonethewiser]

Why did they publish it?

[whimsicalism]

Interesting. Personally as a huge advocate of open science, the LK99 stuff has revealed to me flaws in rapid communication of science.

The lay public becomes far too overinvolved.

[abnry]

What are the flaws? Why is the lay public not allowed to be involved? That sounds like elitist gatekeeping. The truth will come out regardless. Why can't everyone share in the excitement?

[almostnormal]

Most topics are sufficiently boring (or presented in a boring way) that it won't cause any issues.

The problem arises, when journalists publish some bad interpretation or oversimplification. That's where the review is needed.

[shadowofneptune]

Yeah. For everyone watching with excitement, keep in mind that the silicon semiconductor was for years worse in practice than germanium ones, even if it was theoretically better and cheaper. It took advancements in material sourcing, kilns, etc. etc.

Give this material 20 years, and we will see how it fared.

[techdragon]

I think this might be a bit exceptional as far as public engagement goes. So I wouldn’t necessarily judge public engagement based on this case.

“Rocks float” vs “rocks not float” is a very easy success criteria for the average person to judge by, lowering the bar for the average person to feel like they can add something to the conversation… so when we add in the potential revolutionary aspects of a room temperature superconductor we have a recipe for significant engagement… it’s even engaging the gawker reflex and people are picking up on it be LK99 is a weird trending topic and people will check to see if it’s an airplane that crashed or something …

In essence it was, by sheer coincidence, bound to go viral… and only because of a number of properties that others won’t have…

[pabs3]

> posted on arxiv.org website which is ... copyright-free

Content on arvix is copyrighted by the authors, who then choose one of the available licenses to allow redistribution under (mostly CC ones).

https://info.arxiv.org/help/license/index.html

[MPSimmons]

>It is generally written by standard journalists

It may be, I don't know. This particular journalist has an undergraduate degree in Physics from Columbia - https://dangaristo.com/about/

That's not exactly subject-matter expertise, but it's also not a standard journalist.

[ecshafer]

While an undergraduate degree in physics puts them above the average person, it’s probably only slightly. The majority of undergraduate physics degrees do not touch on solid state physics or material sciences to this degree. It would be at best a single elective course. And even then in physics and the sciences the area of focus gets so specific I would be hesitant to trust even a graduate degree holder unless they went into that field.

[whimsicalism]

Agreed. I have an undergrad in physics from a top uni, took solid state courses, and worked in a lab specifically studying superconductivity and I dont really feel qualified to comment on this, so a generic undergrad physics degree certainly means jack.

[throwawaymaths]

Expertise aside I would argue that an undergraduate degree from a prestigious institution that pivoted to journalism is worse in this era. They have been tokenized and given lots of unearned reputation from their credentials, which biases them to provide the rosiest narrative (which is what the science industrial complex wants), without the years of grinding work or cynicism from management of rocky rapids of fraud and overrepresenting work that at least a grad student had to deal with.

That said, I actually believe lk-99 (let's be clear this is a belief, if strongly held) based on my personal experiences with scientific shenanigans.

[whimsicalism]

It is unpopular on HN to say but I think credentials reflect work usually and so it is not unearned reputation.

[throwawaymaths]

I will amend my adjective. "Only very slightly earned reputation". Getting an undergraduate degree and getting a PhD are nothing at all like each other. Yes, coming out of undergrad you might be book smart, but most phds learn at least some amount of street smarts.

[aydyn]

That should be the absolute bare minimum expertise for a journalist to report on a technical matter.

[kergonath]

That’s all ready much more credible than a lot of people I have seen on social media, for whom a CS degree and reading Wikipedia is enough to weigh in.

[wolverine876]

> intended for a mass audience

Nature markets it to a mass audience? A mass audience reads Nature?

[nonethewiser]

Ah yes. So put Nature’s name on it for credibility but insist it doesnt reflect on Nature’s reputation.

[lyapunova]

I hate to say it, but I agree. Nature has outlived its "legit" branding by leaning too hard into the "product" realm. Most scientists don't want their fundamental work to be sold as a product unless it is a precursor to commercialization of their work. At that point, it becomes advertising rather than science.

When I see Nature pubs, I tend to enjoy the aesthetics of the articles, but discount them a bit to account for the mainstream-ness.

[LordDragonfang]

Yeah, I was going to say. I've seen so many (usually legitimate) criticisms aimed at Nature dot com in the past year alone that I saw the domain immediately disregarded the possibility that this should affect my opinions one way or the other.

[alpineidyll3]

... I once had someone in publishing try to offer me nature acceptance in exchange for ... things. The outsized role of these journals in the scientific community when reviews could be done in the open is pretty messed up.

[wolverine876]

>> calling Nature (Nature!) an "online sensational clickbait magazine"

> Not far from the truth

It's very far from the truth; nothing is perfect, but Nature isn't some SEO clickbait. This subthread shows that the reactionary takedowns of everything now even are taking down Nature, of course. They've already discredited much of science, and have a lot of blood on their hands (climate change and vaccines stand out).

[dclowd9901]

> but they often make quite bizarre editorial decisions (personal opinion).

Off-topic, but if this opinion you wrote wasn’t yours, then who else’s opinion were we to assume it would have been?