
Study finds flaw in emergent gravity - dnetesn
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-flaw-emergent-gravity.html
======
auntienomen
Hopefully, the science journalists who've been hyping various emergent gravity
scenarios will also cover this development.

------
DonHopkins
"Experiencing A Significant Gravitas Shortfall"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Cult...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Culture_series#Look_to_Windward)

------
SkittlesNTwix
Diagram reminds me a bit of:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/8l8c9a/brian_green...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/8l8c9a/brian_greenes_schematic_drawings_are_a_huge/)

------
acqq
The article in question:

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05433-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05433-9)

The journal, to me, does not seem to be much trustworthy:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Communications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Communications)

"Starting October 2014, the journal only accepted submissions from authors
willing to pay an article processing charge (currently $5,200 in the United
States)"

"It covers the natural sciences, including physics, chemistry, Earth sciences,
and biology."

~~~
carbocation
> The journal, to me, does not seem to be much trustworthy:

I can't agree. If you keep reading the Wikipedia article, you'll note: _In
January 2016, all content became freely accessible to the public._

It was previously edited by Magdalena Skipper, who has an impeccable track
record and who is now the editor-in-chief of Nature. It has an impact factor
of 12.

~~~
acqq
> In January 2016, all content became freely accessible to the public.

What does that change? It seems it earns by taking $5,200 for "processing
charges" from every submitter and additionally seems not to be specialized for
some specific discipline. But maybe taking these charges is actually seen as a
way forward for the publishers.

It's the most expensive of the Nature Research open access journals:

[https://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-
npg/natu...](https://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-npg/nature-
journals/)

> It has an impact factor of 12

I haven't understood that, thanks. In this ranking it's on 184-th place,
compared to the real "Nature" which is on 25-th:

[https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?page=4](https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?page=4)

According to this page, there are 213 journals with IF > 10, out of total cca
12,000, which can fit the previous position:

[http://mdanderson.libanswers.com/faq/26159](http://mdanderson.libanswers.com/faq/26159)

At least it's on the 16-th in the category of the "open access journals":

[https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?openaccess=true](https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?openaccess=true)

Still, it is still somewhat unclear to me why would a serious cosmologist
publish there, or, to be more precise I have had an impression it's not common
for them to publish there, the journal being very general.

~~~
carbocation
I think I see the confusion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you interpreted the description of the journal to mean that the
journal would let anyone publish, if they would pay a $5,200 fee.

Instead, the journal is an open-access journal, meaning that anyone can _read_
the articles without paying a fee. They offset their costs by charging the
authors a publication fee _if their work is accepted by the editor after peer
review_. I'm not saying that I like this business model, but it's fairly
standard.

As an aside, by your own math this journal is in the top 2% of all
publications. Plenty of people across disciplines would be very happy to
publish in this journal.

