However, I'm not sure how that would work here because if everyone agreed that its a problem that journals publish the things they do, they wouldn't be able to do that. They do it because people don't agree that this is a problem.
Some people have been looking at whether peer review in medical journals has allowed flawed info abt fat to be published to support the sugar industry. I think it is legitimate that they focus on that specifically & don't also look at whether PoMo is infecting gender studies.
-
-
Well, it depends on whether you're claiming that the peer review standards of some sub-fields is lagging behind that of other more established fields. Are you?
-
No and I'm not sure how we'd go about comparing the problem of a peer review system, say, cheating in a field which claims to uphold an evidence-based epistemology for finanical gain with a peer review system rejecting an evidence-based epistemology for ideological gain.
-
Even if we found a way to compare these and quantify a percentage of published scholarship which had fallen foul of these problems, we'd immediately need to separate them again to address them.
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.