Okay. So the existence of a non-zero number of nuts articles self-assessed by an anonymous account is sufficient hard evidence for you?
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
-
Other sources do too. Others try to refute this but are doing it less successfully. You need to read many sources & evaluate them.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I don't attack the good or the bad. I assume experts in the field know more about those articles and their worth than I do.
-
Huh? You're attacking realpeerreview right now. Do you also go to accounts presenting positively & demand they include bad stuff?
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.