You've actually screenshotted the part which describes the methodology. How is this not clear? We are talking about subdisciplines that use it. It doesn't crop up randomly but is confined to identity studies. This is not to say that identity cannot be studied rigorously.
-
-
Al-Gharbi argues that in an ideal world, they would have subjected their findings to peer review (1st image) -- but also acknowledges that it did not seem possible in this case (2nd image) due to the fact they were about to be "scooped" after being prematurely exposed.pic.twitter.com/UTWn7r8nvI
-
Al-Gharbi was able to make determinations like the one attached here, precisely because the trio did provide rough information on thier failures.pic.twitter.com/PXeepqBv4p
-
It is true they did not disclose thier donors, as would be typical for a published research paper. A recent article in
@chronicle well-explains why this kind of disclosure is important for evaluating research: https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Academic-Corruption-Works/244703 …. -
However, as it relates to the other criticisms, the trio DID disclose some information on failures, and peer-review may not have been a realistic option, all things considered.
-
We disclosed all of it and even presented the early papers which failed and which we now cringe about having become much more proficient in the field. And no, the project is incomplete. We think 10, probably 12 would have got in but we cannot claim certainty of this.
-
I was thinking specifically of your early papers, which are fleetingly mentioned in your video. Did I miss it in your post? I was looking for total # submitted, where they were submitted to, and to which journals. https://youtu.be/kVk9a5Jcd1k?t=166 …pic.twitter.com/TRqHE0lxgS
-
48 submissions total to 29 journals. Lots of desk rejects were out-of-scope submissions, especially early on, as we tried to learn to navigate the scholarship.
-
Okay, to me, that's a big deal and it's a bit odd that it wasn't (again I might be wrong and have missed this) included in your final reports.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
We cannot reveal our funders or our supporters although many have agreed to have their messages of support screencapped with identifying details removed. They fear being fired and dogpiled as racists, sexists & homophobes for wanting this addressed.
-
This is a shame because we tried to address valid criticisms of the last attempt & be very clear about this not being a controlled study, not overstate significance of results & urge people not to do so either. I don't think there is any way to address this that would satisfy you
-
We are all of us honest and sincere people trying to address a very specific problem transparently and with humility. I will now give up on any hope of being read charitably by you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.