Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

gdmfsobtc t1_iuen1um wrote

Your booger hook is not an excerebrator. Use only as directed.

9

RPDRNick t1_iuepws4 wrote

You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't remember your own children.

64

ahmadove t1_iuetdjm wrote

Ah yes. Scientific reports. The "no one else accepted my publication so this is my last resort" journal.

53

velocityjr t1_iuetkc8 wrote

The tone is poor. It hurts the nose and skin and blood make the guitar look awful. Jimi was using his teeth, not his nose. It's the rock and roll that causes Alzheimer's, not the using a nose for a guitar pick.

4

ztreHdrahciR t1_iuf46os wrote

Damn I'll have to remember not to...uhhh..what was it?

Nearly everyone mines for nose gold on occasion

3

mhardin1337 t1_iuf9fji wrote

I hear the two biggest risk increases is; hereditary, and head injuries. I got both.

Now this with my Ohio Valley, allergy having, ass?

Truly, I'm fucked.

3

sreek4r t1_iufd0jw wrote

Damn. I knew I was doing something wrong.

1

MonkeyAlpha t1_iufkbwm wrote

What happens if I pick my ears?

1

NetDork t1_iufqmnk wrote

You're not supposed to use an ice pick.

2

Wargoatgaming t1_iuga5lj wrote

For those who didn't read the article:

It's basically just saying that harmful bacteria found on hands can get into the nose if you pick it.

Wash those hands people!

34

SneakyDragone t1_iugkyka wrote

There a lot of finger pointing going on here

1

_ROADBLOCK t1_iugy4im wrote

Me reading this while picking my nose or ..... Was i?

1

TSAOutreachTeam t1_iuh34k6 wrote

This makes sense.

Sometimes when you get one of those really deep ones that feels like you're pulling out a part of your brain? Best feeling ever.

3

casettedeck t1_iuh4i1j wrote

Dutch will be doomed. Its a national sport here esspecially behind the wheel.

1

SailorK9 t1_iuhnjbd wrote

Just six months ago an article said having measles, mumps, and/or chickenpox can cause dementia. Also artificial sweeteners. Seem that no one really knows.

1

BeatlesGamer t1_iuhvq9g wrote

Kinda makes sense. I zone out super hard when I do pick my nose. Imagine all the time we’ve lost!

1

Helvetic_Heretic t1_iuhxfel wrote

I've only ever picked my nose because of the coke, does that make it better or worse?

3

MiamiMags t1_iui1haq wrote

.. and if you eat them? Plague?

2

HelicopterOld3095 t1_iui3azr wrote

Not me reading this and picking my nose at the same time 👁👄👁

1

Stashan t1_iuikfn4 wrote

If this were true I would have been as lost as Joe Biden by the time I was 12 years old.

1

Bleu_Cerise t1_iuivbei wrote

What about repeated COVID testing?

2

SomebodyInNevada t1_iuiwih3 wrote

Most of what they are saying is talking about plucking hair rather than picking.

1

ahmadove t1_iuj2lxd wrote

Replying to pentatomid_fan (#395,246)

It's common knowledge in academia. It's absolutely not a scam or predatory journal, it's even a part of the nature group lol. It's just that they decided some years ago to convert the journal to an "accept anything that is not fraud or terrible science." In academic terms, this means as long as your paper shows logical research and ethics they HAVE to publish it regardless of how meaningless or low impact it is. Because of this, the IF of the journal dropped dramatically over the last years and continues to drop as we speak.

To clarify further, I'll give an exaggerated example. If you conducted a study showing that age is a strong predictor of mortality (the older you are, the more likely you are to die), and you did all the proper statistics to show this correlation, then your paper will be published. Because, even though the conclusion is useless, it was derived scientifically and logically and so they have to publish it.

Don't get me wrong. It's a brilliant thing for science. For eons we've had the issue of academic journals only publishing high impact and flashy positive results. This is bad because all the negative results get buried in the basement of labs, and no one knows about them. Meaning others are bound to repeat the same research wasting money only to find negative results. But, on the other hand, you have people abusing this by publishing useless and not just negative results. And that is not so nice.

Edit: also I just noticed you said "pay to publish." Lol, all journals ask you to pay to publish. In fact, if one doesn't, it's probably a scam. And nature, amongst the top journals out there, takes thousands of dollars to publish.

6

pentatomid_fan t1_iuj5p00 wrote

Replying to ahmadove (#395,756)

Thanks for the response, i didn't know that this journal had that reputation. I generally only pay much attention to the journals in my field (agricultural entomology). Impact factor isn't really a thing most of my colleagues think about AFAIK, as specialized fields often have low IF. Journal of Economic Entomology for example is 2.381 and Biological Control is 3.857. which is lower than Scientific Reports (4.996). but they are also some of the the main journals for the field. Maybe IF should not be the only metric to consider.

And yes, by pay-to-publish, i meant that current crop of journals that will accept anything without peer-review, but yes publishing costs money. Looks like the term I should have used is "predatory publishing".

Edit for some bad editing

1

peensteen t1_iujanii wrote

As long as science never proves a link between jacking off and blindness, we can rest easy.

3

ahmadove t1_iujln1y wrote

Replying to pentatomid_fan (#396,779)

You're absolutely right. IF is only appropriate as a metric when used to compare journals within the same field. Clinical stuff that make it to NEJM or The Lancet make the most cutting edge stuff in Nature, Cell and Science look like they're less important, then you have other smaller journals that my field publishes in like JASN and Kidney international and NDT which are even lower IF.

However sci rep has really lowered its IF even compared to other journals within the field, which in an ideal world should still be completely fine as its a negative-result journal making it inherently low impact. But unfortunately the stigma remains. Whenever you say you published there, people automatically give you a look in the life sciences. I would never bash negative results, they're vital. I do however dislike genuinely insignificant studies and especially associational studies. Correlations have importance but they're so... So overused it hurts.

1