We have tried to be clear about what can be claimed to have been shown and what can't and it mostly comes down to being able to get the kind of stuff published that we did get published by using existing scholarship to justify it and following reviewers' directions. That's all.
-
-
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.
-
If we had specifically made that claim, of course it would be valid to criticise us if we had not supported it. As we actually made no such claim but specified what we were looking at and why - because we are liberals who care about epistemology & consistent ethics - it is not
-
OK, so you're not claiming that the standards of peer review in 'grievance studies' is any worse than that in physics say. I stand corrected.
-
I have no idea whether it is or not or even whether they could be compared because dishonest or erroneous peer review in a field which upholds an evidence-based epistemology would look totally different to explicit rejection of an evidence-based epistemology.
-
I can see that if a subfield is essentially printing fairy stories, then it's hard to compare its peer review to that of physics.
-
Peer-review systems are almost beside the point.
-
You have to forgive me for being confused then, by what you're trying to prove!
- 5 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.