Academia in theory: rigorous debate, only the best ideas succeed Academia in practice: two peer-reviewers who barely glanced at the paper and an editor who doesn't care if the numbers are right or wrong
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @GidMK
Most academics I know are trying to do their jobs as responsibly as is feasible given the competing demands for our time. It is not clear to me that it is helpful to focus on failures without mentioning the vast majority of academics who are working diligently and in good faith.
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @KenCaldeira
I think the challenge is that the incentives make the system fundamentally broken in important ways i.e. reviewers don't do cursory reviews because they're bad people, but because they're doing unpaid work in their spare time for massive for-profit journal companies
4 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Incentives to publish large numbers of papers describing micro-advances have damaged the system. This damage is a result of both profit motive by publishers and laziness of hiring and tenure committees. (1/2)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KenCaldeira @GidMK
We are at a point in history where fact-based analysis is under threat. While criticism is warranted, statements that undermine confidence in the entire fact-discovery enterprise may not be particularly helpful at this time. (2/2)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KenCaldeira
Well, I've been involved in numerous efforts to correct obvious mistakes published in major peer-reviewed journals this year. Thus far, one paper has been corrected, none of the others has been touched at all
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
(Note: I'm not saying differences of opinion, these are numeric or mathematical errors that are pretty inarguable)
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.