Why I No Longer Engage with Nature Publishing Group
Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago
hxstem.substack.comResearchstory
calmnegative
Debate
10/100
Academic PublishingNature Publishing GroupResearch Integrity
Key topics
Academic Publishing
Nature Publishing Group
Research Integrity
The author shares their personal decision to stop engaging with Nature publishing group due to concerns over its practices, sparking a discussion on the integrity of academic publishing.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
26m
Peak period
1
0-1h
Avg / period
1
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 26, 2025 at 7:40 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 26, 2025 at 8:06 PM EDT
26m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
1 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 26, 2025 at 8:06 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45716019Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 8:04:56 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
However, I do agree with its conclusions: Nature seems to have been broken in this past decade, and a reader can no longer count on scientific rigor being its bedrock. In fact, some pieces that make it through to publication are wholly incorrect in an empirical sense, and since Nature covers such a wide array of topics and approaches, it is impossible to know which unless you happen to be reading an article in an area of frequent and recent domain study.
As was discussed extensively here on HN when it happened, Nature seems to have (justly, I think) lost a whole lot of credibility due to its bizarre and difficult-to-follow publication policies during the COVID19 pandemic, culminating with the unusually boorish headline, "Face masks for COVID pass their largest test yet" in response to a study which decidedly showed no such thing, and which in part prompted the publication of a re-assessment which comes to the opposite conclusion [0].
Most epidemiologists I know - including those who continued to hold out hope for mask efficacy through this time - quietly found this article to be below the standards for a serious scientific publication.
Just re-reading - I'm glad I can laugh about this now - I had forgotten that, even though the article acknowledges that "cloth makes fall short" (whatever that means), it also says "The study linked surgical masks with an 11% drop in risk, compared with a 5% drop for cloth", __without mentioning that the latter was not statistically significant__. I don't recall ever seeing such a thing in Nature prior to COVID19.
It was surreal at times to see the stark difference between, for example, BMJ, whose tone and timbre remained much more consistent, and Nature, which seemed to become an entirely new and different publication.
0: https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13...