I agree part the first part only works if the paper is freely available to all. Having it hidden behind a pay for access wall isn't the way to do science.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Especially if the paper is written by a grad student who has not published yet or someone who is not known much in the field.
-
You couldn't have said it better.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Heterodox economics appears to be fair game in both these regards, however. Who is generally deserving of academic decorum has clearly defined boundaries. Especially when the criticism shows up in the NYT, WaPo or WSJ instead of academic circles.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree that a mean review is demeaning and destructive. But there is plenty of room for criticism that is acerbic and ironic.
-
Certain papers absolutely deserve mean reviews. Are you saying I should hold back when reviewing an Andrew Wakefield paper or a pair by any other antivaxers? No way! They're horrible pseudoscience, and I'm going to call them that!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
great advice! i think academics, especially more junior people and students, should be careful about criticizing papers on Twitter (even if constructive). maybe better to focus on what’s good!
-
Do you see this as harming spread of improved methods and future work?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Funny, you could give this same advice to reviewers. Along with, don’t say “your results are physiologically impossible.” Review to improve! We’re supposed to be peers.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.