18:34: "They're very motivated to vocally disagree with some of the views that people in these fields have. And those views themselves are substantive. The views about, say, gender equality. They might not be right, but they are views that you could argue about..."
How would that work? If it does identity studies, we don't respect it. If it doesn't, it would just say our papers were out of scope. We needed to aim our papers at the journals already producing this stuff. The fields ranged from geography to social work, btw.
-
-
Why not use the language of those fields as best you can and see if in the same time perioid you can get some papers published? If they reject them, then you have additional support. If you sneak the same # through, then... I guess it’s just another field that lacks rigor?
-
That would be a method to test the proposition that other fields have no or fewer problems and we don't know or claim that to be the case. Also, it would rightly be pointed out that we were comparing proper papers written with much knowledge to papers that fudged some language.
-
But i have been thinking that maybe a control could have been that we tried to submit papers which argued for evidence based epistemology & consistent liberal ethics to the same journals?
-
But, in reality, if you look at reviewer comments, you'll see a control on whether you have to stick to orthodoxy anyway because we were faulted many times and rejected many times for not doing so.
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.