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.

I don’t understand what is so bad about that article. The one on the Pacific divide is commenting that there is doubt about evolution in china and Japan, based on a survey they questioned the methodology of. It is certainly a fluff bit, but it hardly is pushing “teach the controversy.

Also, did you see, my agriculture post that answered your critique?