Are you insisting that it's fairly easy for amateurs to get reputable medical journals to publish research that started with a preferred conclusion?
I didn't read that paper. Was it published? Or do you mean that some of the reviewers said some positive things about it?
-
-
FWIW I've identified the spot where I got confused. This AI paper you mentioned I have not read. I started mixing up which one we were talking about when right about here
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Haha, it was given a status of "minor revision" with a request only to shorten it (after review by two peer reviewers) within only weeks. Editor: "reviewers found much to commend in your paper." No requested substantive revisions. Hole. In. One. Ran out of time, though.
-
When I have some extra time, I may give the paper a read. I don't know how to evaluate a paper in terms of supposed ridiculousness based on punch-line style conclusions designed to come across as ridiculous.
-
How in the world do you write a thread on a project you have not yet taken the time to read?
-
I said I've not read dog park paper *carefully.* I mentioned 1 other paper I did not read. I did read some of the others. Moreover, my claim -- namely, that the hoax did not show there was a *special* problem, whether or not there is one -- doesn't rest on reading all the papers
-
I'd suggest reading the reviewers' comments too. Just sayin'.
-
I did look through some of the comments that were posted. But I didn't get the impression that the full reviews were posted, just selections. I'll have to look again when I have some more time.
-
Here's a TL;DR of the dog-humping paper.https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/1004805745068642304?s=19 …
- 1 more reply
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.

