Emil O W Kirkegaard

I'm not saying that any of Carl's associations are on that level, btw. Just speaking to the general principle.

The Open Psych thing looks kinda dodgy to me in that it looks like Noah Carl & Emil Kierkegaard were peer-reviewing each other's papers a lot. But I'm sure you're right there's a lot of dodgy stuff in psych in general.

The issue there, to me, is more this: Did Carl present the OpenPsych stuff AS peer reviewed? Then that would be deceptive and cross my ethical lines. But if not? We academics pub stuff in nonpeer reviewed outlets all the time.

That's a good question. I think the journal describes itself as having "open peer review"?

Carl's use of the "Religion of Peace" website as a source of info on Islamist terrorism does raise questions IMO -- the site is known to be fairly loose with definitions of "terrorism."

I am interested in an expanded take on those two points of critique.

1. What more precisely is the problem with Open Psych? I assume it would be ok for Noah Carl to write a blog post with the same content. But it can't really be worse for having been looked at by other people also.

The only argument that I can come up with is that one might argue an open journal might misleadingly have the appearance of a traditional journal, which can give it sense of (false) authority? I don't the argument convincing, but... That's the only thing I can think of now