Periodic reminder that CogSci papers are not real papershttps://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1009153043508662272 …
-
Show this thread
-
the journal is fine but the conference? y'all are fooling yourselves
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
-
Replying to @o_guest
I've seriously been saying this for years, this is a real sticking point for me
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BayesForDays @o_guest
In my mind cogsci proceedings are papers you couldn't get published elsewhere
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BayesForDays @o_guest
I don't know about this, a lot of work first published in CogSci proceedings is later published in "prestigious" journals
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @tallinzen @o_guest
If it's published later in a journal then that's one thing. But that doesn't make cogsci proceedings a paper.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BayesForDays @o_guest
Sure, preprints and proceedings papers don't count as much as fancy journal papers for hiring and promotion (for better or worse), but that doesn't mean that the work they describe is work you couldn't get published elsewhere (that's the bit I was objecting to)
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @tallinzen @o_guest
Fwiw it's work that often isn't published elsewhere, which I find somewhat suspicious.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @BayesForDays @tallinzen
I think there's definitely a culture amongst certain cogsci attendees that really promotes sending as many abstracts as possible every year and somehow this specific group (dare I say clique?) gets many accepted. It's certainly something.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
No idea what to make of it.
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.

