"It’s undermining the purpose for which Nature exists; it’s a mistake." Lol no. Nature exists to 1) make a metric shit-ton of money off university library subscription fees, 2) provide an Everest of prestige for scientists to target their papers towards, and 3) to be a digest of the 'best' science for professional scientists. While the p…
"It’s undermining the purpose for which Nature exists; it’s a mistake."
Lol no. Nature exists to 1) make a metric shit-ton of money off university library subscription fees, 2) provide an Everest of prestige for scientists to target their papers towards, and 3) to be a digest of the 'best' science for professional scientists. While the public might be a titular part of their mission, you're really arguing about whether or not a trade magazine should have an editorial policy, which is not really a very important debate.
This is a hair too hot-takey for me, even if it's narrowly true. If I say that the purpose for which the grocery store exists is to sell groceries, nobody parachutes in to say well #ACTUALLY the reason the grocery store exists is to make money for its owner.
No, your analogy is flawed. The purpose and the motivation of the grocery store in your analogy are both primary. I am saying that Josh (because I am confident in my understanding of the scientific publishing world) mistakes a quaternary concern for a primary one.
He's not necessarily wrong that the endorsement is counterproductive, but both impacts are minimal at best.
I was on board with Josh's argument until I read this comment. It is impossible to ignore these components of Nature/Science/Cell's mission, and Jim's ranking of priorities rings true for anyone in academic science.
I'm not sure what the best analogy would be for those not steeped in this inside-baseball. I would say wine appellations, which have an important public facing aspect, but mostly exist for the internal purposes of setting price and prestige inside the winemaking community. The Motion Pictures Association and the Academy Awards might be more familiar to average Americans, or perhaps Ivy League universities. American culture is not so much designed around prestigious institutions and aristocratic social hierarchies, but I suspect Josh's subscribers have an above average familiarity with internal squabbling and Beltway politics.
"It’s undermining the purpose for which Nature exists; it’s a mistake."
Lol no. Nature exists to 1) make a metric shit-ton of money off university library subscription fees, 2) provide an Everest of prestige for scientists to target their papers towards, and 3) to be a digest of the 'best' science for professional scientists. While the public might be a titular part of their mission, you're really arguing about whether or not a trade magazine should have an editorial policy, which is not really a very important debate.
This is a hair too hot-takey for me, even if it's narrowly true. If I say that the purpose for which the grocery store exists is to sell groceries, nobody parachutes in to say well #ACTUALLY the reason the grocery store exists is to make money for its owner.
No, your analogy is flawed. The purpose and the motivation of the grocery store in your analogy are both primary. I am saying that Josh (because I am confident in my understanding of the scientific publishing world) mistakes a quaternary concern for a primary one.
He's not necessarily wrong that the endorsement is counterproductive, but both impacts are minimal at best.
I was on board with Josh's argument until I read this comment. It is impossible to ignore these components of Nature/Science/Cell's mission, and Jim's ranking of priorities rings true for anyone in academic science.
I'm not sure what the best analogy would be for those not steeped in this inside-baseball. I would say wine appellations, which have an important public facing aspect, but mostly exist for the internal purposes of setting price and prestige inside the winemaking community. The Motion Pictures Association and the Academy Awards might be more familiar to average Americans, or perhaps Ivy League universities. American culture is not so much designed around prestigious institutions and aristocratic social hierarchies, but I suspect Josh's subscribers have an above average familiarity with internal squabbling and Beltway politics.