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.
-
-
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
Again, http://retractionwatch.com Why is this field singled out, other than the authors don't like its particular politics or theoretical underpinnings? (It's not my cup of tea, either, but I think their critique is in good faith or all that clear.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @merlinc2 @alloftheponies1 and
It's the field of epistemology which we have expertise in. We support people with other expertise finding other problems with knowledge production in their fields - eg the current debate about whether fat has been unfairly linked to disease in service of the sugar industry.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @merlinc2 and
But we wouldn't necessarily complain if they focused their attention on that and didn't also learn about postmodernism and critical theory which drew on that and the epistemology which stems from this. Or about replication in social science. Or some debate over cold fusion.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @merlinc2 and
It is very possible to focus on a single problem which you know about and/or which affects you without asserting that there are no other problems in the world. In academia people do specialise & it is not at all suspicious if they address problems in one field and not every field
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @alloftheponies1 and
That's fair (you critique what you know). But then why jump from that to broad-brush critiques of university culture (which you do in that essay you linked)?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
We criticise the aspects of university culture which have the same problem. The 1 that caused me to get threatened w everything from dirty diapers to grenades for saying gender differences exist but this doesn't justify discrimination. Also, we wrote this:https://areomagazine.com/2018/03/23/a-principled-defense-of-the-university/ …
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.