"Britannica said Nature cited passages not in the encyclopedia and criticised it for refusing to publish the referees' reports."
from Nature's response: (not mentioned above)
"The company has, for example, claimed that in one case we sent a reviewer material that did not come from any Britannica publication. When the company made this point to us in private we asked for details, but it provided none. Now Britannica has identified the review in question as being on ethanol. We have checked the original e-mail that we sent to the reviewer who looked at the Britannica article on ethanol, and it is clear to us that all the reviewer's comments refer to specific paragraphs from Britannica." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7084/fu ll/440582b.html
No where did Nature claim they were reviewing material strictly from Britannica encyclopedia, but rather material published in print or online by Britannica. Additionaly, Nature did actually release a lot of the information on the details of the study, including each error identified,etc and that can be viewed online as well: http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html
Don't just listen to what some Guardian article, or what I tell you for that matter. Go look for yourselves and decide. All of the information to the claims by both Britannica and Nature can be found from the link above.
Slashdot Mirror
"Britannica said Nature cited passages not in the encyclopedia and criticised it for refusing to publish the referees' reports."
u ll/440582b.html
l
from Nature's response: (not mentioned above)
"The company has, for example, claimed that in one case we sent a reviewer material that did not come from any Britannica publication. When the company made this point to us in private we asked for details, but it provided none. Now Britannica has identified the review in question as being on ethanol. We have checked the original e-mail that we sent to the reviewer who looked at the Britannica article on ethanol, and it is clear to us that all the reviewer's comments refer to specific paragraphs from Britannica."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7084/f
No where did Nature claim they were reviewing material strictly from Britannica encyclopedia, but rather material published in print or online by Britannica. Additionaly, Nature did actually release a lot of the information on the details of the study, including each error identified,etc and that can be viewed online as well:
http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.htm
Don't just listen to what some Guardian article, or what I tell you for that matter. Go look for yourselves and decide. All of the information to the claims by both Britannica and Nature can be found from the link above.
Keith