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."
-
-
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
That's a stain on the journal but not on the broader field of women's and gender studies, which is vast. Would you indict epidemiology or nutrition science writ large for publishing sub-par work that doesn't hold up to subsequent scrutiny? https://www.stat.cmu.edu/~ryantibs/journalclub/ioannidis.pdf …
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @merlinc2 @HPluckrose and
It’s one of the most well respected and influential journals in the field. Where else are these fields going to inform themselves other than top tier scholarship?
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alloftheponies1 @HPluckrose and
You can be a well-respected journal & still publish things that are controversial or don't hold up (or don't detect a hoax & fake data). Would you generalize about New England Journal of Medicine in this way even if it's published papers on rare occasion had to be retracted?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @merlinc2 @alloftheponies1 and
If people could publish bad papers by drawing on a wealth of bad papers in the journal and the reviewers encouraged further badness, absolutely you could and should.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
This isn't about knowledge being updated and errors discovered due to new science tho. That's productive. That's an evidence-based epistemology working. It's about an epistemology which rejects evidence and reason explicitly so cannot be corrected or even right or wrong.
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.