Are you insisting that it's fairly easy for amateurs to get reputable medical journals to publish research that started with a preferred conclusion?
-
-
Replying to @ConceptualJames
I know that Hypatia is generally well-regarded; I don't know about the others, so I don't have a basis for comparing degree of reputability. But, my goodness, yes, I see shoddy research published by authors with a preferred conclusion published in medicine *all the time*. As for
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... whether they are amateurs: they will often have 2 learn a little about statistics first, or collaborate with someone who can run some of the basic tests; but as I wrote in my thread, the standard way of using stats in medicine & psychology produces loads of type 1 errors ..
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... as 4 Hypatia, however, I take it 1 of co-authors is professional philosopher, so that wouldn't be an amateur. For other journals, if they had novel quantitative methods you had to first learn (to the level of a typical NHST user), might've taken u a bit longer, but not much
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... anyway, I already said in my original tweet that there *may* be an asymmetry in terms of average epistemological rigor required to publish in a top journal in gender studies vs. medicine, but your hoax doesn't show that. Just for a few examples, here is a paper in a ...
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... and here is a paper of mine critiquing a study published by pretty smart researchers in the Journal of Urology - a top journal - for making truly astonishing errors in statistical interpretation and reasoning https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tre.531 …
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... I could copy in dozens of more examples, but I referred to the 'replication crisis' generally because it is, well, a general problem. So I see your hoax as caught on the horns of a dilemma: if your point was that a person can, in bad faith, trick a small number of ...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... journals of unknown representativeness in a given field into accepting ideologically driven research with prima facie absurd conclusions, then I would say, nothing new to see here, that was already obvious. If your point was rather that you had provided good evidence of ...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... a special problem in gender studies and related fields, as compared to others that you don't see as so worrying to the integrity of academia, then I would say that your hoax was very poorly designed to provide strong evidence of such a thing & so did not provide such evidence
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp
Here's a simple point: I understand the problem in grievance studies, and I know how to manipulate it, essentially at will. No other field I'm aware of is susceptible to this particular problem.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
The particular problem of you, personally, being able to get *some* bad-faith papers into *a couple* of top journals in *any* other field, if you were sufficiently motivated? I think you sell yourself rather short. But anyway, you didn't try, so we have no evidence of this.
-
-
Replying to @briandavidearp
How many of our papers have you actually read?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.