The journal scope is to avoid publishing papers that fuel political controversies. Scientific controversy is very welcome. Regarding scientific truth? Well, there certainly is scientific soundness, often tested in peer-review. The paper never reached that stage, though.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The editors carefully read the manuscript and evaluated it in the same way we do all manuscript submissions. Editorial decisions are guided by the Aims of the Journal, available here:https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jintelligence/about …
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @AndrewRAConway @Russwarne and
We considered the scientific contribution (we seek work that "moves forward the study of human intelligence"). We also considered the potential to fuel political controversy. In our view, the scientific contribution was weak and the potential to fuel was high so we rejected.
19 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @AndrewRAConway @Russwarne and
We did not "screen for political correctness *before* even considering scientific truth". We made an editorial decision. Disagree with the decision if you like but don't call into question our integrity as scientists.
21 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @AndrewRAConway @Russwarne and
There are major limitations of the research, which the authors acknowledge. Here are three quotes from the paper...
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @AndrewRAConway @Russwarne and
"the data analyzed here have relatively low sample sizes and high standard errors for many of the ethnic groups."
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @AndrewRAConway @Russwarne and
"Interpretation of these results is limited by the relatively small samples sizes of the non-White groups, and the incomplete validity of NART as an index of mental ability."
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @AndrewRAConway @Russwarne and
"the measures of ability used in these samples were often not ideal; either being measures of singular cognitive traits (e.g., verbal ability), or composites of individually poor indexes (in the case of UKLS)."
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @AndrewRAConway @Russwarne and
I'm confused. The aims description clearly states that the journal "will not publish articles that may lead to or enhance political controversies". Apparently you judged that the paper in question was such an article. So why assess and bring up the quality of the research?
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
As a distraction
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.