Nature (journal): Difference between revisions

| openaccess = Hybrid

| impact = 6450.85

| impact-year = 20222023

'''''Nature''''' is a British weekly [[scientific journal]] founded and based in [[London]], [[England]]. As a multidisciplinary publication, ''Nature'' features [[Peer review|peer-reviewed]] research from a variety of academic disciplines, mainly in science and technology. It has core editorial offices across the United States, continental Europe, and Asia under the international scientific publishing company [[Springer Nature]]. ''Nature'' was one of the world's most cited scientific journals by the Science Edition of the 2022 ''[[Journal Citation Reports]]'' (with an ascribed [[impact factor]] of 6450.85),<ref name="WoS">{{cite book|title=20222023 Journal Citation Reports|title-link=Journal Citation Reports|publisher=[[Clarivate Analytics]]|year=20222024|edition=Science|series=[[Web of Science]]|chapter=Nature}}</ref> making it one of the world's most-read and most prestigious [[academic journals]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Huxley |first1=T. H. |title=Nature: Aphorisms by Goethe |journal=Nature |date=November 1869 |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=9–11 |doi=10.1038/001009a0 |bibcode=1869Natur...1....9H |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fersht |first1=Alan |title=The most influential journals: Impact Factor and Eigenfactor |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=28 April 2009 |volume=106 |issue=17 |pages=6883–6884 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0903307106 |pmid=19380731 |pmc=2678438 |bibcode=2009PNAS..106.6883F |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Scholar Metrics: Top Publications |url=https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues|publisher=Google Scholar}}</ref> {{As of|2012}}, it claimed an online readership of about three million unique readers per month.<ref name=":2" />

==Publication in ''Nature''==

[[File:Nature citations per article, 2013-2015.jpg|thumb|Skewed curve of citations per article in 2015 to ''Nature'' articles from 2013 to 2014]]

According to ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', another academic journal, being published in ''Nature'' has been known to carry a certain level of prestige in academia.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Callier |first1=Viviane |title=Yes, it is getting harder to publish in prestigious journals if you haven't already |journal=Science |date=10 December 2018 |doi=10.1126/science.caredit.aaw3380 |s2cid=165486966 }}</ref> In particular, empirical papers are often highly cited, which can lead to promotions, grant funding, and attention from the mainstream media. Because of these [[positive feedback]] effects, competition among scientists to publish in high-level journals like ''Nature'' and its closest competitor, ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', can be very fierce. ''Nature''{{'}}s [[impact factor]], a measure of how many citations a journal generates in other works, was 42.778 in 2019 (as measured by [[Institute for Scientific Information|Thomson ISI]]).<ref name="WoS" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Journal metrics {{!}} Nature Research|url=https://www.nature.com/nature-research/about/journal-metrics|website=www.nature.com|language=en|access-date=2020-05-30}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Nature|url=https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21206&tip=sid|website=www.scimagojr.com|access-date=2020-05-30}}</ref> However, as with many journals, most papers receive far fewer citations than the impact factor would indicate.<ref>{{Citecite bioRxiv journal|last1=Larivière |first1=Vincent |last2=Kiermer |first2=Véronique |last3=MacCallum |first3=Catriona J. |last4=McNutt |first4=Marcia |last5=Patterson |first5=Mark |last6=Pulverer |first6=Bernd |last7=Swaminathan |first7=Sowmya |last8=Taylor |first8=Stuart |last9=Curry |first9=Stephen |date=2016-07-05 |title=A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions|journal=bioRxiv|page=062109|url=http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/062109 |language=en |doibiorxiv=10.1101/062109|hdl=1866/23301|s2cid=64293941|hdl-access=free}}</ref> ''Nature''<nowiki/>'s journal impact factor carries a long tail.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Callaway|first=Ewen|date=2016-07-14|title=Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric|journal=Nature|language=en|volume=535|issue=7611|pages=210–211|doi=10.1038/nature.2016.20224|pmid=27411614|bibcode=2016Natur.535..210C|s2cid=4452614|issn=0028-0836|doi-access=free}}</ref>

* '''The [[ozone hole]]''' — <small>{{Cite journal | author=[[Joe Farman|J. C. Farman]], [[Brian G. Gardiner (meteorologist)|B. G. Gardiner]] and [[Jon Shanklin|J. D. Shanklin]] | s2cid=4346468 | title=Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction | journal=Nature | year=1985 | volume=315 | pages=207–210 | doi=10.1038/315207a0 | issue=6016|bibcode = 1985Natur.315..207F|ref=none }}</small>

In 2017, ''Nature'' published an editorial entitled "Removing Statues of Historical figures risks whitewashing history: Science must acknowledge mistakes as it marks its past". The article commented on the placement and maintenance of statues honouring scientists with known unethical, abusive and torturous histories. Specifically, the editorial called on examples of [[J. Marion Sims]], the 'Father of gynecology' who experimented on African American female slaves who were unable to give informed consent, and [[Thomas Parran Jr.]] who oversaw the [[Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment]]. The editorial as written made the case that removing such statues, and erasing names, runs the risk of "whitewashing history", and stated "Instead of removing painful reminders, perhaps these should be supplemented". The article caused a large outcry and was quickly modified by Nature.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Science must acknowledge its past mistakes and crimes |journal=Nature |date=7 September 2017 |volume=549 |issue=7670 |pages=5–6 |doi=10.1038/549005b |pmid=28880309 |bibcode=2017Natur.549R...5. |s2cid=4462464 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The article was largely seen as offensive, inappropriate, and by many, racist. ''Nature'' acknowledged that the article as originally written was "offensive and poorly worded" and published selected letters of response.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Readers respond to Nature's Editorial on historical monuments |journal=Nature |date=8 September 2017 |doi=10.1038/nature.2017.22584 }}</ref> The editorial came just weeks after hundreds of white supremacists marched in [[Charlottesville, Virginia]], in the [[Unite the Right Rally|Unite the Right rally]] to oppose the removal of [[Robert E. Lee Monument (Charlottesville, Virginia)|a statue of Robert E. Lee]], setting off violence in the streets and killing a young woman. When Nature posted a link to the editorial on [[Twitter]], the thread quickly exploded with criticisms. In response, several scientists called for a boycott.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Schulson |first=Michael |title=History Lessons for 'Nature'|date=17 September 2017 |newspaper=Undark Magazine |url=https://undark.org/article/nature-journal-j-marion-sims/}}</ref> On 18 September 2017, the editorial was updated and edited by Philip Campbell, the editor of the journal.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Campbell |first1=Philip |s2cid=47247939 |title=Statues: an editorial response |journal=Nature |date=18 September 2017 |volume=549 |issue=7672 |pages=334 |doi=10.1038/549334c |pmid=28922663 |bibcode=2017Natur.549..334C }}</ref>