I think also the editors are sometimes to blame.
I once refereed a paper and pointed out that the resolution was overstated
(I/s(I) = 1.05 in the last resolution shell, as well as a couple of comments
that clearly suggested that the density wasn't very good). The editor
ignored my comments.
Silvia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silvia Onesti
Sincrotrone Trieste S.C.p.A.
SS 14 - km 163,5 - AREA Science Park, 34149 Basovizza, Trieste ITALY
Email: [email protected]
Tel. +39 040 3758451
Mob +39 366 6878001
http://www.elettra.trieste.it/PEOPLE/index.php?n=SilviaOnesti.HomePage
http://www.sissa.it/sbp/web_2008/research_structuralbio.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:48:41 +0100
Vellieux Frederic <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
Like everyone else, I was appalled.
My two cents worth: Nature and Science are not scientific journals in the
strict sense of the term. They are more like magazines (I won't go all the
way
to say "tabloids"), and as such will do anything to publish what seems to be
hot. And will reject very good scientific papers. So it's not a surprise
that
retractions affect magazines such as Science and Nature.
Fred.
