re: #509 freetoken

Yes they are, and while that is no sin I still believe the best thing for academic publications is to be done on a non-profit basis. Even the journals of the various science professional societies suffer from the need to sell, but at least they seem to reign in the worst cases.

NPG is not the worst of the commercial publishers, by far. Yet because Nature is held up as a pinnacle of scientific publication I think they ought to be held to a higher standard.

It’s weird for a science publication to throw this in at the third paragraph, and then go ahead and make conclusions based on the study:

The results are not conclusive. Far from being rigorous, the survey sampled countries unevenly, with thousands of respondents in the United States and several European countries, 1,195 in Japan and just 269 in China. The respondents were self-selected, so some subsets of readers may simply have bypassed the questionnaire.