#SokalSquared challenge:
Assume its not self evident the dog park paper is bad. What would a proper peer review look like?
Has anyone done this?
@HPluckrose @ConceptualJames @peterboghossian #theydontspeakforme #grievancestudies #academia
-
-
Replying to @alloftheponies1 @HPluckrose and
In general, you leave your own view of their argument out of it. "Review the paper the authors wrote, not the paper YOU would have written."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @merlinc2 @HPluckrose and
Thanks Merlin. I’d love to see his method used specifically on the dog paper (or any of the other Sokal square papers )
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @alloftheponies1 @HPluckrose and
The peer review process is very fallible, too, and suspect to all human foibles, ranging from bias to simply missing things that look egregious in retrospect. A discerning editor along with a diverse spectrum of reviewers is a guard against this.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @merlinc2 @HPluckrose and
Ideally I’d love to see one of the writers of these papers demonstrate how they would have reviewed it. I think it’d help bridge the gap between layman and academic. But they’ve already done a tremendous amount of work already.
5 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alloftheponies1 @HPluckrose and
I'm still not buying the premise at all that a green-lit peer review is an indictment of the field itself or even that journal. It's one rung among many in scholarly assessment.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @merlinc2 @HPluckrose and
The journal rated it as one of the top 12 papers published in the past 25 years.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @alloftheponies1 @HPluckrose and
It's a leap to make from poor stewardship of a journal (or a specific lapse in judgment, like lauding this for an anniversary issue) to an entire field. Plus, the hoax paper was based on fake fieldwork. Whatever flaws in the entire field, most people aren't making up data.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Helen Pluckrose Retweeted Helen Pluckrose
No, it wasn't. Some had fake data but the significance was that unwarranted claims were made from them. https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1049780696225640448 … And we cited many, many papers to make the claims we made. And we were encouraged to further madness by reviewer comments.
Helen Pluckrose added,
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @merlinc2 and
If you want to claim that Hypatia has poor stewardship because it allowed us to publish a paper which drew on its previous feminist epistemology papers, you necessarily dismiss much of feminist epistemology which makes its home there. I think you should, obv, but do you want to?
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. 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.