Grievance scholars panicking, claiming it would be just as easy to get hoax papers accepted in the harder sciences. Fine. Go ahead and try to get one published in the main journals I review for: 'Intelligence' or 'Evolution and Human Behavior'. Let's see how it goes.
-
Well, perhaps, but remember Bem in JZpSP, and the fake corpus of Stapel, and Schönnin physics.
Fabricating data or misreporting analyses are very different from a hoax paper.
-
-
Genuine Q: What is that difference, other than intention - which ultimately is in the unknowable mind of the authors? For example, in what ways is Fredrickson & Losada (2005) different from a hoax? https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7006
-
I don’t see it. People on the quantitative side has no reason to feel smug.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
they did fabricate data no?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why? The accusation is that these journals cannot tell quality scholarship from nonsense. The intention of the authors is irrelevant to the question of nonsense or not.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Really? I think they are just about the same thing.
-
“The flame burned green under x condition” is a very different statement to “Any attempt to deny God is evidence of anti-religious bigotry”. One is falsifiable.
End of conversation
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.