←back to thread

Publishers trial paying peer reviewers – what did they find?

(www.nature.com)
31 points xqcgrek2 | 1 comments | 29 Mar 25 19:08 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
withinboredom ◴[02 Apr 25 18:03 UTC] No.43559461[source]▶
There's this guy I usually have on in the background on youtube who replicates chemistry experiments -- or attempts to. It's pretty rare to see him find a paper that doesn't exaggerate yields or go into enough details, and he has to guess things.
replies(3): >>43559567 #>>43559623 #>>43560480 #
datadrivenangel ◴[02 Apr 25 18:11 UTC] No.43559567[source]▶
You don't exaggerate yields, you just publish the best one you get out of a dozen attempts. Chemistry is messy.
replies(2): >>43560495 #>>43560975 #
1. awjlogan ◴[02 Apr 25 20:11 UTC] No.43560975[source]▶
Compare the yields in a typical JACS (or any high end journal) paper versus those in OrgSyn and I think it's pretty clear that yields in many papers are more than exaggerated. It's a single untraceable number and the outcome of your PhD depends on it - the incentive is very clear. Leave a bit of DCM in, weigh, high vac to get rid of the singlet at 5.30ppm and no one's any the wiser...