Open is good right? In response to @KriegeskorteLab's open review of our work on neural similarity, I offer you "An open review of Niko Kriegeskorte", which is a less tedious read that touches on how difficult it is do something novel in this field.http://bradlove.org/blog/open-review …
-
-
Yes, that’s the tricky timing issue I referred to.
-
Also I think you are responsible for how your words are used by others (to an extent), but I don't think that's a point worth debating on Twitter.

-
Yeah, that sounds like an interesting philosophical tangent :)
-
I think it's' central to
@ProfData's blog post though. How well do you know your English history?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F … -
In my opinion, you are now comparing a call for (violent) action in an explicit or thinly veiled way to a reviewer sourcing views from other scientists after critical scrutiny. The latter is not invited by the source, whereas the former is.
-
So now you have read into my words (a metaphor) something other than the point I was making. Am I responsible for how you just read my words?
-
No, your intention might have been very different than my reading. What you and Kriegeskorte have in common is that neither of you expressed an explicit wish for a particular thing to be. (BTW, this distinction is an interesting legal issue! It often limits what free speech is.)
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
To make it clear: if the reviews are sent right after they were done, the authors get a chance to engage in dialogue before rejection from journal...
Thanks. 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.