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.
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.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.