Graphene optical lens 200 nm thick breaks the diffraction limit

Re:Graphene optical lens 200 nm thick breaks the diffraction... by hiddencost on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @03:53PM (#11022469)

Uhm, Nature Communications is a subjournal of Nature Publishing Group. There is literally no more reputable publishing group. None. Nature, their flagship journal, is the highest impact factor journal in the world.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Graphene optical lens 200 nm thick breaks the diffraction... by scott_s on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:00PM (#11022543)

I upvoted you, but I want to add text in agreement since such upvotes can't be seen as an endorsement. gavman's warning about the reputation of the venue is unwarranted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Graphene optical lens 200 nm thick breaks the diffraction... by gavman on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:14PM (#11022663)

I talked to my apartment mate about it. He said that when he showed the article to his advisor, she had the reaction of "they're pay to publish". I can't speak to the reputability of the journal, just providing his response.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Graphene optical lens 200 nm thick breaks the diffraction... by hiddencost on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:17PM (#11022690)

EDIT: sounds like a misunderstanding more than anything.

Here's [0] a link to the rankings of nature journals. Nature Communications is 3rd in general science, and Nature is 1st.

Tim Gowers and the freedom of knowledge group are pushing hard on journal fees.

[0]http://www.nature.com/npg_/company_info/impact_factors.html

Old post :

I can speak to the reputability of your friend's program. The statement is jaw dropping. It is so wrong as to make it hard for me to believe he goes to an accredited university.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Graphene optical lens 200 nm thick breaks the diffraction... by gavman on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:27PM (#11022784)

As I said in a comment below, he's at a top tier program (CMU), so it's likely I didn't understand his adverse reaction. You mention below his/his advisor's adverse reaction may be about "a movement to move to no cost journals", not about reputation. When I see him tonight I'll ask.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Graphene optical lens 200 nm thick breaks the diffraction... by logicrook on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @06:08PM (#11023449)

Many top researchers have a grudge against the shortcomings of Nature, especially given its reputation.

They published papers with fairly weak research for overhype many times already.

One example is the infamous Barabasi-Albert paper on the preferential attachment. It contains many false claims, bad math and extraordinary assertions that would be excusable in some vulgarization for TV, much less for a research paper. They could at least have upped the paper before publication.

There are many much worse examples, that you can find on retractionwatch.com among other places.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Graphene optical lens 200 nm thick breaks the diffraction... by dnautics on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @09:52PM (#11024458)

Nature is not that reputable, I'd put it above science, below JACS. The most reputable journals are cell, and organic syntheses.

If you want to know why org. Syn. is so reputable, check out their description: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Graphene optical lens 200 nm thick breaks the diffraction... by ascorbic on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @06:45AM (#11025935)

That's ridiculous. It's the world's most cited scientific journal. Your opinion doesn't make it disreputable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Graphene optical lens 200 nm thick breaks the diffraction... by dnautics on Thursday February 04, 2016 @02:59PM (#11036711)

You are confusing reputability with a metric of popularity.

[ Parent | on HN ]