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.
-
-
Replying to @christianjbdev @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev
Peer-review systems are almost beside the point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
You have to forgive me for being confused then, by what you're trying to prove!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
Peer review systems are a way to test because they show the epistemology & ethics of a field - of the peers. I don't think our project shows a broken peer review system. I think it works perfectly according to the epistemology & ethics of the subfields. Those are the problem.
5 replies 1 retweet 37 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
People can disagree about that and say that, in reality, the fields of grievance studies are still working on an evidence-based epistemology and on consistent liberal ethics and the peer-review which allowed our papers which all demonstrated the opposite of those was faulty.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
We would point to the scholarship we cited in order to be able to make the arguments we did and show that these scholars are much respected in the fields and also show how Social Justice scholarship affects Social Justice activism and society more broadly. Not a peer-review blip.
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.