Yesterday I noted that the New York Times article on the Nobel prize award for graphene said that the paper had been rejected by Nature and accepted by Science. Interestingly, today I got an email from a science journalist who noted that this statement doesn’t appear anywhere in the article. And the journalist is right! Since the New York Times isn’t cached by Google I have no way to verify the original statement. Anyone else remember that line from the article? And why does the New York Times not allow access to all versions of an article (like the arXiv!) or at least make a statement that the article has been modified from its original form. Inquiring minds want to know 🙂
Update: Of course, not to be a hypocrite, shouldn’t my blog also have access to all versions, including the ones where I spelled graphene “graphine” and the one where there isn’t this update? Is there a plugin that does this? And also I would like to know if I hallucinated this entire episode (i.e. the last sentences above only make sense if it was my own hallucination 🙂 )
O brave new quantum world!
Awesome thanks Browser Cache 🙂
Hmm, thats an interesting question as to whether you can expose previous revisions to your readers. A bit of Google fu shows that there isa WordPress plugin that does it. It looks like it might be a little bit finicky to set up.
Yes, the article had said
“Their first paper on graphene was published in Science in 2004, after being rejected by Nature. A second paper appeared in 2005.”
It now says
“The first two papers on graphene were published in Science and online in 2004. Three more appeared in 2005.”
The one that was published in Science is here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0410550
and was slightly different from the one they submitted to nature
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0410631
(which as they point out had somewhat more material which people wanted to see, so they posted it though was never published as it was).
Then they had three articles in 2005
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0503533
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505319
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0509330
(published respectively in PNAS, Phys Rev, Nature, and cond-mat/0505319 [the one in Phys Rev] includes the additional material from the rejected nature article cond-mat/0410631 ).
What about trying the UW’s Zoetrope project? http://www.technologyreview.com/web/21769/?a=f Is it tracking the NY Times website? And can you get access to the data?
The plugin is really easy to use — just download it, add it to your plugins directory and turn it on. The only aspects that can get complicated are the styling via CSS. If you want to try it out and need any help just let me know!
There is a plugin – you can see it in action (and ask the blogger more about it) here.