Comments

• Date:

  Wednesday, 17 Jun e 2009 - 11:33 UTC

  Henry Gee said:

  Doesn’t say which century, though, does it?

• Date:

  Wednesday, 17 Jun e 2009 - 12:39 UTC

  Richard Grant said:

  Oooh hark at you.

• Date:

  Wednesday, 17 Jun e 2009 - 14:14 UTC

  Craig Rowell said:

  Sounds like Henry is holding out for Editor of the Century.

• Date:

  Wednesday, 17 Jun e 2009 - 14:37 UTC

  Henry Gee said:

  Again, I ask – which century? I choose the 18th.

• Date:

  Wednesday, 17 Jun e 2009 - 15:02 UTC

  Grace Baynes said:

  OK, OK, ‘of the last 100 years’ is more accurate. 1909-2009

• Date:

  Wednesday, 17 Jun e 2009 - 15:12 UTC

  Richard Grant said:

  That’s a shame. I was hoping Nature would be the journal of the Millennium.

• Date:

  Wednesday, 17 Jun e 2009 - 15:49 UTC

  Bob O'Hara said:

  Henry can edit the 18^th century as much as he likes, just as long as it doesn’t lead to dancing.

• Date:

  Wednesday, 17 Jun e 2009 - 18:15 UTC

  Maxine Clarke said:

  It is, Richard, this one and every one in the future ;-)

• Date:

  Wednesday, 17 Jun e 2009 - 20:01 UTC

  Richard Grant said:

  I amazed it’s taken this long.

  And on the second Day, YHWH created Nature, and saw that it was very good.

• Date:

  Wednesday, 17 Jun e 2009 - 23:31 UTC

  Beta Gal said:

  What makes you so sure a page won’t be torn from Nature and mixed with some soil to generate a superior journal on the third day?

• Date:

  Thursday, 18 Jun e 2009 - 00:29 UTC

  Richard Grant said:

  oooo. Good point. Someone give that girl a job.

• Date:

  Thursday, 18 Jun e 2009 - 14:06 UTC

  Sabbi Lall said:

  which century? I choose the 18th

  Well Nature Structural Bio/NSMB has been around since 1994, and was in the top 100….