Talk:Science (journal)/Archive 1

Excess information

The text dealing with the MDMA article is much too long. The emphasis of the article is now almost exclusively on the failings of the Science editorial policy, something I think is not quite fair. JFW | T@lk 08:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:41, 2004 May 14 (UTC)) I agree. I've stripped it out to its own page. See talk there.

Imputation should be removed

May I ask what purpose the link to the article "Science" accused of 'grabbing headlines' is meant to serve? I highly recommend this link to be removed. If someone wishes to criticize that MDMA has been falsely accused of causing neuronal damage, he or she should write a personal webpage on the issue. But I think such a link has no place in an encyclopedia like wikipedia.

The link has been relocated to the more appropriate article discussing the controversy retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy. --Lexor|Talk 12:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In addition, the phrase "The publication of one particular article in the 23 September 2002 issue of Science (volume 297, pages 2260-3) has recently been questioned following the publishing and retraction of Dr. George Ricaurte's article on the psychotropic drug ecstasy." seems out of place and completely ridiculous as well. The retraction of an article is something that happens from time to time even in the most prestigious journals. The discussion of whether the editors of Science Magazine played a doubtful role in not rejecting the article from the outset - at a time when antidrug legislation was discussed in Congress - is a matter that should be discussed by the press and by the scientific community. Please remove this entry. In my view, such a discussion has no place in an encyclopedia at all.

Peter, a researcher from the University of Vienna

(William M. Connolley 09:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I have reverted to an earlier version. Now the para has been removed, but a link to a wiki page about the MDMA stuff is restored. As to the rest, I'm not sure I agre with out about the role of wiki.

ps: you can't add text like "see discussion" to the article.

There are several good reasons to include mention of the retracted article. First, it illustrates that editors and scientists make errors. The way to correct systems that produce errors is to openly discuss the problem. Second, the retraction illustrates an important part of self-correction within the process of doing science. If you look at the Wikipedia article for the New York Times you will see that it includes a section on problems that that publication has had [1]. The fact that a retraction was the first item anyone wanted to add to the Science Wikipedia page is unfortunate. It just needs to be balanced by additional positive information. JWSchmidt 00:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, I have reinstated the link to the retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy. --Lexor|Talk 02:54, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Science vs Nature

"Science tends to provide more review articles which summarise recent progress in a field of research to a general audience, whereas Nature tends to have more specialised articles which people from outside the field may find difficult to understand."

The above was called "biased comparison of Nature and Science" and removed from the article by User:Senthil (23:50, 25 September 2005). The article correctly mentions the "competition" between Science and Nature and I see nothing wrong with trying to characterize the differences between the two journals. I think the deleted text (above) is basically a correct characterization of some of the differences between the two journals. Question: in what way was the deleted text "biased"? --JWSchmidt 12:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. As a working scientist, I tend to see Nature and Science as being fairly interchangeable. Both have similar classes of articles (normal papers, longer review-like-papers, news items, editorials, readers' letters, etc.), and both cover a similar range of topics (in the distribution of articles on topics, both also reflect the growing size of the biomed field). So although I disagree with the "biased" remark by Senthil, I don't entirely agree about the compositional differences between the journals (although I've never stopped to work it out). When I think of differences between them at all, I tend to think of them as representing the first port-of-call for European (Nature) and US (Science) researchers. I'd be interested to read any detailed breakdown of their contents. --Plumbago 12:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd mostly go with Plumbago: they are fairly interchangeable, though with differences in tone perhaps. William M. Connolley 14:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC).

What about PNAS (Procedings of the National Academy of Science)? I believe that "Science", "Nature", and "PNAS" were all voted as the three most respected, high profile general science journals in a survey. I'm 95% sure that I read it in a Science issue, so I may ahve to dig back into by back issues and check. Nevertheless, does anyone else agree of disagree that "PNAS" should also be included as a peer of "Nature" and "Science"?Raivein 05:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, what's its impact factor? Nature and Science weigh in at about 30, but I'm not sure where PNAS falls. Can you check? I've certainly never heard them put on an equal footing, but I'm not sufficiently au fait with PNAS to be sure. --Plumbago 09:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

PNAS is 10. Nature and Science are 32. I don't think PNAS ranks up with them. In fact...

Mark  	Rank  	Abbreviated Journal Title
(linked to journal information) 	ISSN 	        Total Cites IF  Immediacy
Index 	Articles 	Cited
Half-life
	1 	ANNU REV IMMUNOL 	0732-0582 	14357 	52.431 	6.100 	30 	5.9
	2 	CA-CANCER J CLIN 	0007-9235 	3725 	44.515 	  	  	3.3
	3 	NEW ENGL J MED 	        0028-4793 	159498 	38.570 	10.478 	316 	6.9
	4 	NAT REV CANCER 	        1474-175X 	6618 	36.557 	4.152 	79 	2.3
	5 	PHYSIOL REV 	        0031-9333 	14671 	33.918 	4.029 	35 	6.7
	6 	NAT REV MOL CELL BIO 	1471-0072 	9446 	33.170 	4.167 	84 	2.8
	7 	REV MOD PHYS 	        0034-6861 	17765 	32.771 	5.826 	23 	>10.0
	8 	NAT REV IMMUNOL 	1474-1733 	5957 	32.695 	3.250 	80 	2.2
	9 	NATURE 	                0028-0836 	363374 	32.182 	6.089 	878 	7.2
	10 	SCIENCE 	        0036-8075 	332803 	31.853 	7.379 	845 	7.0
	11 	ANNU REV BIOCHEM 	0066-4154 	16487 	31.538 	4.182 	33 	7.9
	12 	NAT MED 	        1078-8956 	38657 	31.223 	5.720 	168 	4.7
	13 	CELL 	                0092-8674 	136472 	28.389 	7.632 	288 	7.9
	14 	NAT IMMUNOL 	        1529-2908 	14063 	27.586 	5.400 	130 	2.7
	15 	JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 	0098-7484 	88864 	24.831 	5.499 	351 	6.3
	16 	NAT GENET 	        1061-4036 	49529 	24.695 	5.623 	191 	5.1
	17 	ANNU REV NEUROSCI 	0147-006X 	8093 	23.143 	2.154 	26 	6.3
	18 	PHARMACOL REV 	        0031-6997 	7800 	22.837 	1.105 	19 	6.5
	19 	NAT BIOTECHNOL 	        1087-0156 	18169 	22.355 	4.942 	138 	4.0
	20 	LANCET 	                0140-6736 	126002 	21.713 	5.827 	415 	6.8
        ...
 	88  	P NATL ACAD SCI USA   	0027-8424  	345309  10.452  1.923  	3084  	6.7

But if you refine your criterion to "total cites > 200,000 AND I.F." then PNAS is #3. William M. Connolley 21:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

Good point, but journal importance is usually keyed to impact factor. If you publish more far papers per year, your total impact can be greater even if each of your papers is cited far less. The table above does make the interesting point that Nature and Science are both less significant in impact factor than several other journals. Still, outside of biomed, they are still considered (and the table agrees with this) the premier journals of science. Though given their obsession with fashionable/exciting science, and their number of retractions (relative to that of other journals), one could justifiably wonder ... --Plumbago 11:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

For astronomy I would tend to agree with JWSchmidt -- the ratios of U.S. to European authors in Nature and Science are similar (although certainly not identical). In astronomy new results tend to appear piecemeal, in cryptic form in Nature followed by a summary article a few months later explaining what has been going on in Science, although this is not a general rule. E.g. gamma-ray burst results (e.g. recent gamma-ray burst observations 1999Natur.398..400A, 1999Natur.398..389K, 2003Natur.422..284F, 2003Natur.423..844P, 2003Natur.423..843U, 2005Natur.435..181B), tend to be published within a couple of months of the burst in Nature (even when most of the authors are from the US) but astronomers would expect to see papers which summarise the gradual progress in theoretical explanation of these events and statistical analysis in Science (I have also just spotted 2005Sci...309.1833B which discusses all bursts with anomalous x-ray spectra between 23 December 2004 and 5 May 2005 -- I have to admit that this is not much of a review really as there are only two anomolous bursts in this period!). Perhaps this is different in other fields. Rnt20 14:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• This observation is useful to document in the article as it helps people understand the relative editorial focus of the two publications. It is also useful to put this observation and others like it in a time-context as the strengths and weaknesses of the two in particular areas of scientific inquiry will change over time as the editorial board changes. Courtland 14:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Question for User:Rnt20: So you are not talking about formal review articles? You are talking about "regular" articles such as: "Bright x-ray flares in gamma-ray burst afterglows" (PMID 16109845) and "An asymmetric energetic type Ic supernova viewed off-axis, and a link to gamma ray bursts" ()? -- Yes I was talking about the style of "regular" articles, although the second of these is clearly very specific to one astronomical event! Rnt20 17:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I should probably qualify my Europe/US remark. All I meant was that of the scientists that I know (hardly a representative sample) European ones (specifically UK ones) tend to favour Nature, while US ones tend to favour Science. However, even with this preference, I've never heard anyone placing one above the other (although their citation indices are not identical). I think people just prefer their "local". Anyway, I thought that I'd better say something before this (useful) discussion drifts off in a direction I didn't intend. --Plumbago 16:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed this line ("Science tends to provide more review articles which summarise recent progress in a field of research to a general audience, whereas Nature tends to have more specialised articles which people from outside the field may find difficult to understand.") only because it indirectly implies that regular articles in Nature tend to be incomprehensible and those published in Science tend to be better understood. I feel that both the journals are on the same level when it comes to understanding since both publish reviews, research articles etc. from a fairly common pool of subjects such as biology, astronomy, earth science etc. --Senthil 19:40 27 November 2005 (IST)

I feel like the term "arch-rival" in the intro paragraph smacks of NPOV violation. Certainly, the journals compete to be THE top science journal of the world, but "arch-rival" implies a more aggressive form of competition, and perhaps mutual ill-will. Can anyone provide support of the arch-rivalry, or should we delete it? --ragesoss 07:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was a staff member at AAAS from 1996-2001. There was definitely an attitude within the organization that Nature was our main competitor and rival. "Arch-rival" might be too strong a phrase, but higher level staff members definitely expressed an attitude that Nature was our main rival. Some of my co-workers were miffed that Nature was dragging its feet when it came time to offer libraries and institutions site licenses to the online version of the journal. I also remember some disappointment that the IHGHC were publishing their papers and chart of the human genome in Nature. The human genome was published in both magazines during the same week, with Science featuring the work from Craig Ventner and Celera. Chuck0 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

History

Most of the information for the history section was taken from the excellent online article at http://archives.aaas.org/exhibit/ This is a great resource for further additions to this article. My question is how to cite it? Should I just have one citation at the end of the history section, or should I cite individual pages of the online AAAS article following each sentence? Sayeth 17:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Famous controversies

Why a mention of the MDMA controversy but not the more recent Jan Hendrik Schon or Woo Suk Hwang scandals? Readers who come to this article may be looking for the stem cell information in particular. The Hwang article has been kept nicely up-to-date. Alison Chaiken 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is this section here? I have followed Science for many years, and, yes, there have been several notable controversies involving retracted papers. But none of those have made Science itself controversial, and they do not merit coverage in an article as short as this. It looks like the intended purpose of this section is to provide a link to the article on the MDMA paper (with the other two retracted papers mentioned to camoflauge the intent). I propose that this section and the MDMA "See also" link be deleted. - J. Johnson (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Another suspect article by Diederik Stapel Stapel, Diederik A., Siegwart Lindenberg 8 April 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6026 pp. 251-253 doi 10.1126/science.12010 Science (journal) 68 Coping with Chaos: How Disordered Contexts Promote Stereotyping and Discrimination

May be section title should be "retracted papers"? Andries (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ScienceMagCover23June2001 72.jpg

Image:ScienceMagCover23June2001 72.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ScienceNOW or Science Now

Does anyone know the exact relationship between this and the "main" journal Science? The get archived separately, so it's not one and the same journal. But on AAAS site it's hard to distinguish between news from Science and ScienceNOW. Also, the spelling, at least on Academic Search Premier, is "Science Now". In any case, it seems that a section here seems more appropriate than a separate article. Thoughts? VG ☎ 22:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Papers

Could anyone compile a list of landmark papers, similar to that given in the article on Nature. It would make for interesting reading. Wogone (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would, but it would be very challenging to identify which reports (papers) are "landmark". The comprehensive expertise needed to do so is probably limited to the editorial staff at Science. Perhaps someone could try contacting them and asking for a list? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I created a landmark papers section to reflect the one at Nature. While I don't have the comprehensive knowledge necessary to speak to all papers published in Science, the two I included especially known (and cited) in cognitive science and psychology. That other articles are not present is a reason to add them, not to remove the present ones. Or do you want proof that these articles are especially influential in psychology? (stating that Einstein's 1905 papers were influential in physics, for example, does not contravene WP:PROMOTION) The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the lack of other "landmark" artcles is very much a reason to not have these two articles. It's a matter of balance (see WP:WEIGHT): having these two alone suggests that they are the only landmark papers to have appeared in Science. Very misleading!!

Your suggestion that the appropriate response is to add the missing papers is not workable, because 1) is is not working (where are they?), and until it does work there is this massive unbalance, and 2) such a piecemeal approach (of random editors randomly adding their favorite candidates) would not give us any basis for determining which papers are truly "landmark", nor ensure that truly landmark papers are included.

But the real problem with this approach is that you are going at it backwards. Basically, you have two papers that you think are "landmark", so you added them. This is pure WP:PROMOTION, the tail wagging the dog. Even if these papers are landmark, adding just them (or even something like Einstein's papers) is still promotional if that is the only part of the job that is done. If you truly wanted to add "Landmark papers from Science" you would start with the question of just what those papers are, or even how to identify them (note my prior comment, above, about contacting the editorial staff at Science), then add all (or a reasonable approximation) of those papers, not just a few favorites. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In other academic journal articles editors (including me) have a "Cited papers" or "cited articles" section. For something like this I select some of the most cited papers for that journal, and place information in that section. Ir has been reccomended that I only have three articles in this section. I actually use a "cite journal" template, so there is author, title, doi, volume number, etc, etc. I don't actually put the actual citation number because that can change on any given day. For example, the paper entitled "Fishing Down Marine Food Webs" has been cited by 1,780 [2]. So, it would look like this in the section:

• Pauly, Daniel; et al. (February 6, 1998). "Fishing Down Marine Food Webs" (PDF). Science. 279 (5352). AAAS: 860–863. doi:10.1126/science.279.5352.860. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help) Free PDF download. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You have demonstrated proper citation technique, and I suspect your point is to show that the citation of those two papers is grossly inadequate. In that respect I agree. But the primary issue here is not the improper citation, but the arbitrary (and unsourced!) inclusion and characterization of two papers as being "landmark". If that isn't addressed the section comes out, and there is nothing to cite. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Sorry for the confusion. I thought the "Landmark" section had been removed already. I agree with its removal if this section remains unsourced, and therefore arbritrary. ....

[Splitting Steve Quinn's comment of 03:53, 31 January 2011 to start new section. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC) ]

Cited papers

[I have split Steve's comment to start a new section. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)]

I was talking about something different. And rather than add to the confusion by starting a new section, I decided to propose it in this section. My proposal is to create a section entitled "Cited papers" or "Cited articles". These are published articles by a given journal that have a signifigant number of citations. For example, see this section [3] in the Nature Nanotechnology journal article. In essence this is supported by the fact these two particular articles have more than 100 citations each (See Google Scholar here and here). However, the section is merely entitled "Cited papers" to avoid using more subjective terms in the section title. This is something different from claiming "Landmark papers". There is no such claim involved. It is all substatiated facts. And it could enhance this article (not that it needs to be enhanced, however). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(As it's usually less confusing to keep separate discussions/topics under separate headings, I have taken the liberty of putting this in a new section.) I am not too clear on what you are proposing here, but it could be a list of "most cited" papers. (Meaning citation of a given papers in other papers.) But I suspect the main criterion of determining what is a "landmark" or "notable" paper is the citation count, so these two concepts tend to blur together. If you have some reliable source for, say, the ten most cited articles from Science, that might be worth a section. But you should check around to see if there other criteria to consider.

But what you have actually said sounds like mentioning papers that make the most citations (references), and I really don't see the purpose of that. That tends result from length, so the number of citations (papers cited, references, etc.) is really only a proxy for length. And what is the notability of being excessively long? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

J. Johnson, thanks for your feedback. I will get back to you on seeing if I can find other criteria, besides citations. A couple of points - first, to have a list of landmark papers, there must be some sources, which say these are landmark papers. Cited papers, on the other hand, are backed up by the number of citations. For example, just because a paper has more than 100 citations, does not mean it is a landmark paper. It may be implied by the reader, but there is no explicit claim. Nor is there any intent that the reader imply this. It is a bare bones cited paper.

Second, cited papers in the "Letters" section of a joural (rapid communications), or a journal that focuses on only "Letters", is probably not a result of length. These articles are short by definitions. I think these are usually three or four pages long. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• • I may be wrong, but it seems to me there is some confusion here. I think what Steve means is "Most-cited papers". I could easily look up the three papers that got the most citations over the last 30 years, for example, using the Web of Science (Google Scholar is way too imprecise for that). --Crusio (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, confusion on several points. Steve, I don't know what you mean by 'a journal that focuses on only "Letters"'. Perhaps you have an instance in mind, but what we are talking about here is Science. And by "three or four pages long" it sounds like you are thinking of Nature, which by "Letters" (as distinct from "Correspondence") refers to what Science calls "Reports". So I really don't what you're talking about there.

As to criteria for determining what is a "landmark" paper, yes, how often a paper is cited by other papers is one measure. But sometimes mere controversy will boost the citation count, so it is probably best to find some source where a panel of experts have judged which papers are most notable. I suspect that if you can't find some such source on Science's website then it probably hasn't been done. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Crusio, yes, I am talking about most cited papers. But, I am having trouble getting the idea across. May be you can help with the explanation.

Here is an example of a "Letters" journal - the Physical Review Letters with the journal description here.

The description says that Physical Review Letters provides... " rapid publication of short reports of significant fundamental research in all fields of physics..."..."Physical Review Letters featured short, important papers from all branches of physics..." . We have a Wikipedia article on this journal, BTW.

Here is "Optics Letters" [4]. ... "provides rapid dissemination of new results in all areas of optics and photonics with short, original, peer-reviewed communications ...

We have a Wikipedia article about this journal as well. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The concept of a citation count (as in "what papers originally published in Science have been cited the most times?") is simple enough. What I don't understand is your point in describing these other journals, and how that relates to an article about this journal. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Swima-article

I have a request for an article about "Swima-worms", published in Science in August 2009: Deep-Sea, Swimming Worms with Luminescent "Bombs". Since I am not a subscriber, I only have access to a very brief abstract. I am aware this might not be the appropriate forum, but need help with additional, reliable and more comprehensive sources for my article on Swedish Wikipedia, which so far is only a stub. I will be very grateful for your help/Jonte93 (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Try the Reference Desk. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, I have posted my request there now

/Jonte93 (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Cell in the intro

The journal entitled "Cell" has been added in the introduction as having a larger impact factor than "Science". Personally, I not familiar with this journal. I am wondering if it merits mention in the introduction. "The New England Journal of Medicine" also has an impact factor higher than "Science". The impact factor of "Nature Medicine" is not far behind "Science". There may be other journals that simply have a higher impact factor than "Science". I think the distinction here is that "Nature" and "Science" publish original research that is interdisciplinary in scope. As the "Nature" article in Wikipedia says, these two journals publish "across a wide range of scientific fields" while scientific journals have tended toward spccialization. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Availability

To me the content of the section entitled "Availability" seems to be trivial and seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE. It may even be considered promotional. If that is the case then it is really not Wikipedia's job to promote a scientific journal or anything else. I really don't see how the accessibility (or availability) of this journal, for the general public or otherwise, adds anything relevant about the journal. Many journals have pay walls and exclusive access via subscription, so this does not seem to be a signifigant viewpoint. This again relates to the possibility of giving undue weight to this section. I reccomend removing this section. In its place I reccomend that perhaps a one sentence description of accessibility in the last pargraph of the introduction would be one acceptable idea. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I was initially inclined towards your position, but on thinking it over I am now inclining towards keeping that section. I also don't understand what you mean by "Many journals have pay walls ... this does not seem to be a signifigant viewpoint", and your seeming connection of that with WP:UNDUE. My feeling is that where so many journals are cloistered behind paywalls access is (esp. for Wikipedians) a significant issue. That the section is so big results from the complexity of different forms of access. I don't think that describing the details of access promotes the journal. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I am just saying the unavailabilty of current articles is common among subscription journals, and there are a lot of subscription journals. This does not seem to be notable or remarkable. On the other hand it might be of interest for this particular journal, because this journal is probably one of the most signifigant in the research world. I think I read somewhere that a paper published in this journal can make someone's career. I now wish I had kept that article, because it might be an interesting atatement for this article. (I'm not talking about the "career advancement" already mentioned in the article). So now that I am firmly on the fence I will have to give my initial concern, in the first paragraph, some thought. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Er [Moved Erroneous first sentence section here, as it is a continuation of this section. –JJ]

The first sentence of the section entitled "Availability" says: "Online versions of full-text archive articles are not generally made available to the public." This sentence may not be accurate.

Allow me to point out that many full-text archive articles are made available to the public for free. All that is needed is to open an account for free. This is what I have - a free account. I can access, and have accessed full-text articles in the archive. Specifically a few of my access rights are as follows:

• "Science full text Research Articles and Reports published more than one year ago back to 1997".
• "Science Express abstracts".
• "Science Editorials, Letters, This Week in Science and Editor's Choice".
• "All Free Content on the site". (There is a large list of what is available in this area) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Basis of beng "most cited/top" scientific journal.

I question the recent Lemonick citation (supporting the "most cited/top" claim). In the quote cited that was an incidental comment. What we need here is a definite statement from somewhere, preferably supported by some kind of data, as to Sciences's stature. – J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering what other people's thoughts are on this citation. At the moment I don't have a problem with it. At the same time, I agree that a statement with more support is preferable. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I just checked the Journal Citation Reports and the claim is, in fact, false. Science is third in number of total citations (after Nature and PNAS) and 15th in terms of impact factor (out of all 8073 journals listed in the Science edition of JCR). --Crusio (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The actual claim made in the article is that Science is "one of the world's top scientific journals" (emphasis added); being third (in some respect) does not falsify such an indefinite claim.

The problem I have with the Lemonick quote is that it is primarily about this other paper having an impact because it was published in Science. That Science has a lot of clout is an incidental statement, and not sourced. JCR would be a much better source. Let's consider something like this:

Science is one of the is one of the world's top scientific journals, being third in total citations (after Nature and PNAS) and 15th in terms of [[impact factor]. [And here we cite JCR, and perhaps other sources.]

Okay? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Listing of landmark and retracted papers

This topic has been discussed and the article on Nature has such a thing. The aspect that interests me are the retracted ones, since they are instructive as the landmark papers, at least in some ways. I invite editors to recall some of the big glitches, the following was mentioned in the NYT today:

• Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from Human SCNT Blastocysts" Woo Suk Hwang et al. Science 17 June 2005 308: 1777-1783 doi:10.1126/science.1112286. "Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst" Woo Suk Hwang, et al Science 12 March 2004 303: 1669-1674. doi:10.1126/science.1094515.

--Smokefoot (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)