Once you dig into the detail of the critism a lot of it boils down to "you claim this we claim this".
And the very fact that much of that criticism can be so boiled down suggest a deep flaw in
Nature's methodology(*).
But I think there's some much more critical issues that don't simply boil down. A number of the "errors" found are based on misrepresentations of what
Britannica actually publishes. Of the forty-two "errors" found, two were based on articles in the
Book of the Year; one was based on the
Student Encyclopedia and apparently on another unknown document; one was based on the introduction, not the complete article; three were based on sections of articles excerpted from their true context; and one was a Frankenstein-like composition of multiple independent articles. That's nearly 20% of the total errors found -- and
Britannica doesn't have access to the full data to check the rest.
That level of mishandling of the data amounts almost to scientific fraud, if not outright libel. It certainly reflects badly on the competence of the original scholars. If I wrote a book review for a journal, the editor and readers have the right to assume that the book I reviewed is actually the one I said I reviewed. If I didn't -- and more importantly, if someone
proved that I didn't -- that might have serious negative consequences for me and for my career. At the very least, I suspect that the editor of that particular journal would never accept a book review from me again. At the worst, that kind of scientific misconduct could cost me my position....
(*) Or the methodology of author of the original article, if you prefer, although
Nature still should have caught it.
