It showed that we could draw on an awful lot of terrible scholarship to justify terrible claims and that reviewers would direct this to further awfulness.
Convinced of what tho? If they're not convinced of the limited claims we made: We published papers which said certain things Those things are entirely compatible with what is already there Reviewers directed us towards those things they are objectively wrong.
-
-
I haven't met anyone who is denying this. What continues is disagreement about whether it is OK that this happens and whether it is OK to criticise this happening and whether it is OK to criticise it in the way we did.
-
OK, well, I'm not going to play devil's advocate and argue something I don't really believe, because I personally agree with you that the journals likely can't reliably distinguish good papers from bad.
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.