Comments on: Britannica Comes Out Swinging at Nature http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/britannica-comes-out-swinging-at-nature/ Upgrade Your Lifestyle Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:36:18 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Wholesomedick http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/britannica-comes-out-swinging-at-nature/#comment-52671 Wholesomedick Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:03:47 +0000 #comment-52671 Somebody call the WAAABULANCE. <br /> <br /> This isn't going to make me stop using Wikipedia. Britannica would have better spent their time fixing their errors. Do they not have an edit feature? Somebody call the WAAABULANCE.

This isn't going to make me stop using Wikipedia. Britannica would have better spent their time fixing their errors. Do they not have an edit feature?

]]> By: Paul M http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/britannica-comes-out-swinging-at-nature/#comment-52669 Paul M Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:33:47 +0000 #comment-52669 This is a great story. Having read both Britannica and Nature's explanations, Nature still has a lot more explaining to do. It won't publish the extracts it sent to its referees. For a scientific journal this is plain weird.<br /> <br /> Britannica says that Nature sent the referees extracts that weren't from the Encyclopedia Britannica, but from the yearbook (!?) and in one case fabricated an entry.<br /> <br /> If this is true, it's dynamite. Looks like Nature blew it big time.<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a great story. Having read both Britannica and Nature's explanations, Nature still has a lot more explaining to do. It won't publish the extracts it sent to its referees. For a scientific journal this is plain weird.

Britannica says that Nature sent the referees extracts that weren't from the Encyclopedia Britannica, but from the yearbook (!?) and in one case fabricated an entry.

If this is true, it's dynamite. Looks like Nature blew it big time.

]]>