@janeclarejones As an aside, what irritated me about SokalSquared was making an academic claim, but not following academic rules. Bit like calling a foot fault in chess, when someone moves their rook along a diagonal. I don't think @HPluckrose quite got that, but then I can't
I just don't know what you expect. You said something about us sending at least 30 (which we would probably have done had we not been cut short) papers to random journals but that doesn't makes sense. They'd have been out of scope for any but the few devoted to this subdiscipline
-
-
So the only variation in selection would have been how highly ranked they were. This would introduce the potential variable that low ranked journals accept rubbish, a criticism made of the conceptual penis: That two explanations sufficed. This is why we went for the highest.
-
Don't know why I said 'sufficed' - that two were possible. Also, we said very clearly that this was not controlled apart from the way we went about writing them. We went in and tried to see how it worked and reflect what was there & presented the results for others to judge.
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.