alt Hacker News> anyone who understands the scientific publishing landscape.
Anyone genuinely familiar with the scientific publishing process probably holds the most skepticism around publications. I could probably get ANYTHING published if I wrote it well enough.
IMO, publications are mostly useful if you're already a bit of an SME in the field so that you can parse snake oil from gold. Certain publishers and institutions also hold more credibility, depending on the topic. Broadly speaking, there's a ton of crap in the journal space and the ratio of crap/good grows by the year.
The above view is independent of the current article. But it's embarrassing to see people praise the heck out of publications in 2026 in a vacuum. Reeks of young PhD student vibes. Even nature is not what it was even 10 years prior.
> Anyone genuinely familiar with the scientific publishing process probably holds the most skepticism around publications
Healthy skepticism is a good idea
The silly notion that being published means it should be dismissed or that we should assume the opposite is true is not healthy though.
> The above view is independent of the current article. But it's embarrassing to see people praise the heck out of publications in 2026 in a vacuum. Reeks of young PhD student vibes.
I was responding to a comment above mine that said this journal was untrustworthy because of a single news bite they recalled.
I specifically said that not everything published in a journal is true!
Your condescending “young PhD student vibes” attempt at an insult is rich considering you didn’t even try to acknowledge what I actually said or the context in which I was delivering it.
Discussing anything science and research related on HN is such a slog because so many commenters are in such a rush to deliver some contrarian smug take that they’re not even reading what’s written.