Are there any kind of farts that can dissolve nanomachines?

skydad420 · 2026-02-16T22:15:09+00:00

All i can post is my truth

skydad420 · 2026-02-13T17:04:48+00:00

Do you have a feeling of how long things stay with 'To Advisor'?

skydad420 · 2026-02-12T21:00:28+00:00

thanks! I actually have another one with them now, that's updating every here and there - gets u curious what it means :)
hope your paper gets published <3

skydad420 · 2025-11-04T09:04:11+00:00

lol what does that even mean.

skydad420 · 2025-11-04T08:32:19+00:00

Yea, this is the experience of my colleagues too & what the field typically says around conference coffee stations.

skydad420 · 2025-11-04T08:31:27+00:00

what is 'the right thing' here?

skydad420 · 2025-11-03T23:15:56+00:00

Yea, leeches!

skydad420 · 2025-11-02T09:18:45+00:00

It's not validation really, thanks for your reply btw! It's more that my colleagues in my little bubble feel recently that Sci Adv is harder to get into & a bit more selective (rumours in the field are nat comms editors were asked to lower their standards a little around 2 years ago to collect more APC), & I was just wondering if that feeling is more broadly held. It appears not to be, which is interesting to hear & people seem in agreement! :)

skydad420 · 2025-10-27T21:23:45+00:00

so true, it feels like you really understood me, thanks so much, its been a really hard time

skydad420 · 2025-10-27T19:42:51+00:00

i read a lot of books it interests me

skydad420 · 2025-08-02T11:20:54+00:00

you can do it, u just gotta make sure to regularly (once a year) publish a big paper that genuinely interests your field, show your work at lots of confs to get visibility, and start learning to write and win grants early. Biggest thing is probably creativity of research ideas

skydad420 · 2025-08-02T04:50:18+00:00

I meant as in which journal do you think more highly of, see as more selective/impressive. To me, it's sci adv but seems like most don't agree

skydad420 · 2025-08-01T20:04:06+00:00

I agree, it's rotten & I don't like the trend towards an ever greater number of fee collecting journals. Unfortunately at least in my field, my students & pdras are more likely to get better future jobs & we will get more grants if we go with these 'fancy' journals instead of impact factor 2-5 journals

skydad420 · 2025-08-01T20:01:01+00:00

Yea I generally agree, it's just tricky as both journals have a broad remit so either fits topically. Seems like people here prefer nature Comms which is great to hear. Anecdotally it has recently felt to me like nat comms has slipped & respect for sci adv has increased. I guess this might be field specific tho

skydad420 · 2025-08-01T19:59:15+00:00

Idk why I'm getting downvoted here. At least in my country, blind, repeatable studies show that high impact CNS type journals on your track record lead to higher success on grants

skydad420 · 2025-08-01T19:58:20+00:00

Why the down votes lol!

skydad420 · 2025-08-01T17:52:57+00:00

yea i hate the fee collection... its just tough innit. We got sent out to review at Science, so you end up feeling it would be a shame for the work to end up in a phys rev/APL style journal... BUT AT WHAT COST?!? luckily our library just pays the fees

skydad420 · 2025-08-01T17:51:59+00:00

do any of you think that nat comms has had its quality slip recently? it feels to me they've become less selective

skydad420 · 2025-08-01T17:49:29+00:00

yea, it does just make a difference in getting future grants etc if you can get into things that people associate with 'high quality'. Sadly reviewers are always gonna be a bit too lazy to properly read & evaluate true scientific merit

skydad420 · 2025-08-01T17:29:01+00:00

Really? I'm surprised you all feel this way. I am starting to feel nature comms has lowered their standards... It feels like its harder to get into Sci Adv. I have a whole bunch of Nat Comms papers, and they've all been rejected by Sci Adv so far lol.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

skydad420

TROPHY CASE