Mark is apparently a political hack with an administrator job. Any "actual" scientist knows what you and James and Helen did was extremely valuable.
-
-
Right it's annoying and important to be reminded of the laws/rules. I've done it numerous times.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I disagree. Several people were harmed, peer reviewers time wasted, they were subjected to ridicule because people apparently don’t understand peer review does not detect fraud, finally the structure was shoddy, not systematic and unsupervised with a clear ideologic agenda.
-
Who was harmed? I'm happy to help them out pro Bono if they're struggling. Peer reviewers time was wasted. They earned the ridicule by not reading though.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Dr. Gorski: The OHRP's Office for Human Research Protections policy (45 CFR 46) on human subjects provides all sorts of exemptions from internal reviews. What part of the policy led you to conclude that this paper is not exempt?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not "who was harmed" but "who was a human subject and how would the training apply to them"?
-
The subjects were the peer reviewers and the other academics that contribute to a literature who had their field and reputations smeared. The goal of the study was ideological ax-grinding, and an attempt to devalue the careers of others that they don’t think have value.
- Show 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.