

Nature rejects Krebs's paper, 1937 (2010) - tshtf
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28819/title/Nature-rejects-Krebs-s-paper--1937/

======
twic
Full marks for the commenter who wrote:

"I would love to get a 'rejection' letter from Nature that says that they
would publish my paper with a delay of a few weeks."

The context there is that these days, it takes months and months for a paper
to be published in any journal!

~~~
_delirium
I also liked:

 _This was the first time in my career, after having published more than fifty
papers, that I experienced a rejection or semi-rejection_

Partly that's because such submissions were indeed seen as letters or
correspondence, to be lightly vetted for topicality and sanity and then
published, vs. the current situation where 80-95% of submissions are rejected.

------
rocky1138
It was very nice of them to send his submission back to him with the
understanding he may wish to submit it to competing journals. In my opinion,
this doesn't paint Nature in any bad light other than being overloaded at the
then current time.

------
lcedp
I was having a minute brain freeze until I've realized it is not nature but
(the?) Nature

~~~
astine
Right, Nature, the scientific journal. The way it's worded, I thought this was
going to be some kind of proof that Krebs was incorrect.

------
andrewljohnson
The comments on that page really flew off the rail. I think there is a troll
loose.

