Nature Ecology and Evolution begins publishing

This journal, one of the family of Nature spinoffs, has been in the works for a while, and I have great hopes for it. Headed by editor Patrick Goymer, who used to work for the Mother Nature, comes out with its first official issue next January, but has already published four online articles that you can read for free. It also has a Facebook page that you can “like” to get updates and, as all new journals must, it also has a  Twitter page.

I’m pleased to have made the first comment on the FB page, which is to wish the journal and its editors well, but—because I’m petulant—to add the hope that Nature E&E doesn’t go the way of its Mother Nature by coddling religion or publishing articles about how science and religion are harmonious. If it keeps its wits about it, the new journal will simply keep the superstition out of its pages.



  1. sgo
    Posted November 8, 2016 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Wow, the Nature Publishing Group is really going at it – they’re also starting “Nature Astronomy” some time in 2017. There’s probably other journals, too.

    I doubt that these journals in the Nature family will publish about science and religion – those specialized journals seem to be more to the point (meaning, they stick more to their main topic) than the mother journal itself.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted November 8, 2016 at 9:06 am | Permalink

      I can’t say that I’ve read enough of Nature GeoScience to say one way or the other. I don’t have a sub, so I have to wade my way into the contents to find a link, then go to Sci-Hub to get the paper ; by the time I’ve finished, doing their quality control for them is low on my to-do list.

  2. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted November 8, 2016 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    Welll, if I were the editor I would consider publishing articles on both sides of the science-religion debate.

    I would have Jerry Coyne and/or Taner Edis write on why they are not compatible (Victor Stenger has passed into the realm of stardust) and then get someone like Alister McGrath (mainly because of his training in biology) or Ken Miller to argue the opposite side.

    (Taner Edis is the author of the much under-rated “Ghost in the Universe” which seems to have gotten very little attention.)

    • Posted November 8, 2016 at 11:43 am | Permalink

      Good to see Taner mentioned – he collaborated (a bit) with Vic at one point.

      As for publishing – I’m not sure Nature is the right venue. I’m not one for a science-philosophy split, but ITSM that the debate belongs in a philosophy of science journal, or perhaps a methodology one (!).

%d bloggers like this: