One point that would have been nice to hear brought up in relation to this is that the authors do argue against these ideas in ways that don't involve hoaxes rather often. This project is supplementary to that. Meant to address some common responses to that argument.
-
-
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @peez and
But I think an ethical position against insincere scholarship intended to be revealed with an argument that there's a problem with knowledge production in that field can be consistently & coherently held whether you consider this hoaxing or not. I'd disagree with it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
Because I think it can show the problem from start to finish with the process in a way that other forms of criticism cannot. It can show the research sources - the key texts already in the field - the review process & how authors are directed, the publication process etc
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
Obviously other ethical problems arise in other fields. Someone asked us why we didn't go for a problem in medical publishing in relation to bad data enabling dead tracheas to be transplanted into patients endangering their lives.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
(Btw, I saw you asked about this earlier. When i referred to “controls” i simply meant trying the same exercise in another field, one you respect, and comparing the publication rates to see if they are less likely to accept these anthropological Trojans.)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @peez and
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @peez and
You might have to create new names for this to not confound the data by possible blacklisting.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.