You'd have to ask them but it looks like the criteria is 'Is this clearly completely nuts?'
Oh come on! There is one @realpeerreview mocking the bad stuff & thousands of outlets presenting it positively.
-
-
There is no ethical problem with hosting essays coz you think they're good or bad or funny & saying so. I suspect u don't attack positive 1s
-
Individuals can and should go to a number of sources & evaluate different work & different assessments of it.
-
If you want to a meta-analysis of a whole field of work according to criteria you have set, that would be enormously valuable.
-
But don't expect everyone addressing a topic to do that. Ppl highlight good or bad work, test small hypotheses. It adds up to a big picture
-
Without a method that accounts for bias an error, it's a picture that'll be blurred. I really don't get why that principle is discarded, now
-
The conclusions drawn from 'testing small hypotheses' are not small. This should be a matter of serious alarm for a rational person.
-
Because ppl like you don't realise they are part of a bigger picture & you need to read more than one study, experiment, argument. Stop it.
-
Problem of low standards in journals allowing terrible GS essays onto all the major academic databases exists. The hoax & RPR highlight this
- 2 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.