Some people were having a hard time following the thread or were getting cc'd into various sub-parts of it, so I thought it would be helpful to pin it at the top for the sake of convenience.
-
-
So, the reason I spent some time discussing problems in fields that I assume you take more seriously was to question whether you had really succeeded in providing good evidence for what I took to be your primary claim. As I said in my string of tweets, one doesn't need to do ...
-
... a hoax to learn that there is quite a lot of ill-thought-out, inadequately supported, overly-ideological work in gender studies and related fields. However, in the areas of psychology and medicine I know very well, the very same statement could also be made. So, it seemed ..
-
... to me that, while one might have v. serious concerns about the relative ease with which a person who is trying to trick a journal into accepting sub-par work can succeed in doing so, ur hoax did not provide good evidence that this was especially easy in the fields u targeted
-
Seems irresponsible.
-
What seems irresponsible? Sorry, I don't follow what you're referring to
-
To insist that all or many academic fields suffer the sorts of failures that led the dog-humping paper to be accepted and recognized for excellence in the leading journal of its subdiscipline, e.g.
-
Plot twist: there's actually a spectacular amount of nonsense in all academic fields, and it's only a matter of time before all fields are exposed for being petty, political, and non-rigorous. Even the history of mathematics is filled with terrible ideas passionately defended.
-
All fields? Really? I do wonder if you're one of the types who would jump to criticize us when climate change deniers point to our project and say "see, peer review is crap!"
- 8 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.