Nature Paper! (Human Reproduction Optimization)

[caranha]

Paper shared by Anand Subramanian

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25031-6

Hey, it is a nature paper. Nature papers are scientific, right? Right?

[mbuzdalov]

Eq.15, an origin-biased operator again.

When will these "scientists" just die?

[fcampelo]

A couple of notes here:

• As I'm sure @caranha knows well, Scientific Reports is not Nature -- at this point it's (little more than) Nature Portfolio's open-access, free-for-all cash cow. But yeah, the Nature brand makes it a sexier target than, say, IEEE Access.

• @mbuzdalov , I don't really think publishing a useless method -- even one with a sin as serious as an origin-biased operator ;-) - should merit wishing death on folks. With the exception of a few rascals that are really using this niche as a way to massively game the academic system, most folks involved with those methods are just clueless of what good scientific practice should be. They saw hundreds of papers on metaphor-based methods and took that as validation that this must be the way to go. Personally, I'm just sad that so much collective effort and potential is wasted on this sort of crap, and annoyed that so many people think this is solid science. But that's just me, of course. ;-)

[mbuzdalov]

@fcampelo surely wishing death is an exaggeration, $1M of fine would be just enough :)

But as maybe 70% of journal papers I am reviewing (in journals thought to be more solidly reviewed than IEEE Access) use these methods, and I am typically the only reviewer who turns these papers to rejection, I am just immensely tired, as I have much less time to do my own research.

[fcampelo]

Hi @mbuzdalov ,

Yeah, I totally share your frustration. It's quite an uphill battle, in the rain, massively outnumbered. :( But until we manage to convince more editors to add specific "metaphor-based methods need not submit" policies into the editorial guidelines, we need to keep fighting. Stay strong! If you're getting lots of papers that you're rejecting for essentially the same reasons (low methodological standards, etc etc), maybe consider having a standard pre-written critique of these approaches that you can quickly adapt and send. It can be a big time-saver ;-)