Here is our editorial condemning the open letter signed by 300 academics attempting to pressure @Cambridge_Uni into rescinding the appointment of Dr Noah Carl. With additional remarks from Peter Singer, Cass Sunstein, Jon Haidt, & Jeffrey Flier.https://quillette.com/2018/12/07/academics-mobbing-of-a-young-scholar-must-be-denounced/ …
-
Expect Quillette omitted several key facts. Noah Carl's work is not peer reviewed. It was published in Open Psych which is a pseudo-scientific journal that even had white nationalists as reviewers. So much for emotion versus fact, eh?
All research articles on @OpenPsychJour are peer reviewed. This is easy to know of course because all the reviews are public. https://www.openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=292 …
-
-
You don't follow traditional peer review and follow your own methods which are hugely flawed. Therefore it's not peer reviewed.
-
>You don't follow traditional peer review >Therefore it's not peer reviewed. Obvious non-sequitur is obvious. Better tell Nature etc. that all their peer review innovations are pseudojournals.
- 6 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.