I'm not doubting you're convinced by your own study.
-
-
They are saying we did not prove knowledge production to be worse in these fields than anywhere else but this project was not about that either & did not make that claim. We support people addressing other kinds of problems with knowledge production in other fields.
-
OK, but I still think that's an honest criticism, even if you feel you can adequately answer it, and have adequately answered it. The 'control' question is a natural one for people to ask.
-
What is the criticism? That we should have focused on some kind of metastudy on problems with knowledge production across a wide range of fields instead of looking at a specific one? I'll be the first to say I don't have the expertise to do that. I couldn't test physics journals.
-
It's still seems a fair criticism to make. In the sense of criticising the conclusions of a study, not in the sense of criticising you as a person.
-
And even if that criticism has perfectly reasonable answers, I would think critics negligent if they didn't at least ask the question.
-
It's generally known as whattaboutism and is an attempt to deflect. Why are you addressing this instead of that? Why criticise Islam and not also Christianity? Why criticise subsections of the humanities instead of science? Why look at where women are disadvantaged & not men?
-
Again, it depends on the claim. If you are specifically making the claim that X is worse than Y, then yes, you do need to look at both X and Y.
-
You can of course take the position that *any* exposure of bad peer-review is worth doing, but if you are specifically making the claim that the standards of peer review in field X is worse than that in other fields, then it's natural for people to ask whether you've tested both.
- 11 more replies
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.