It took me a full 24 hours to get it. Sometimes I’m quick that way.
2 Likes
Well, FWIW, this just happened so the issue you were reading would’ve been the pre-Rupert editorial style.
@cubby upthread commended Rob on the 'shoop.
1 Like
Thanks! I missed that! I think that means @cubby wins the thread!
1 Like
Woo! I don’t think I’ve won a thread before - thanks!
1 Like
Don’t forget to feed it.
3 Likes
Wikipedia says that Scientific American is owned by Nature Publishing Group. And if Murdoch owns one of the most respected scientific journals in the world, we have bigger problems. That said, I haven’t read SA in a couple of decades, so I might have missed the dumbing down of a once great magazine.
1 Like
I beg everyone’s party in this thread. It appears I am completely wrong about this.
I’ve believed my falsehood for a couple of decades now, and can’t recall why I ever thought this in the first case. Nature used to be quite a reputable and prestigious publication as well. I don’t know if that has fallen on the same hard times as SciAm, but I hope not. Thanks for the correction.
It still is. Even by idealized quantitative measures.
http://www.nature.com/npg_/company_info/impact_factors.html
Macmillan owns Nature Publishing Group-- not Harper Collins/News Corp.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
