4 ms·
1) Intentionally hiding the source of funding; aka taking a bribe. 2) Intentionally publishing in a sham journal to avoid peer review. These are both tolerabl
by gohrt 11y ago
1) Intentionally hiding the source of funding; aka taking a bribe.
2) Intentionally publishing in a sham journal to avoid peer review.
These are both tolerable behavior in the free market, but ought to be firable offenses for university professors.
- sseveran 11y agoIf applied universally there would be significantly fewer professors. But I don't really think that would be a bad thing.
- noobermin 11y agoHiding the source of funding doesn't seem like the worst of issues, although it certainly makes some research look suspect for its partiality. The worst part is avoiding a good journal. For some professions, just publishing in a sham journal can be pretty harmful for one's reputation...hence the reluctance many have for publishing in open access journals.
- HiLo 11y agoHow is deliberately lying about your incentives and hiding your source of funding under oath testifying to Congress even remotely ok? How are you rationalizing this? What kind of message does it send if we let people lie under oath about what could potentially be so catastrophic? What if they did the same thing about nukes, what's the difference right?
- x1798DE 11y agoI can't comment on the other parts of it really (and I don't know the whole story so I reserve judgement), I'm just skeptical of the claim that he was "bought off" - which would imply that he changed his views because of the money. If the headline were, "Professors agree to hide source of funding and run a climate change journal with lax peer review standards", then I might hold off, but then again, that probably wouldn't look as sexy in a headline.
- shkkmo 11y ago> which would imply that he changed his views because of the money No, it doesn't imply that at all. to buy somebody off: "to bribe someone to ignore what one is doing wrong." "To bribe someone in order to ensure cooperation" The implications carried are that the payments were a bribe and that the actions taken as a result were improper.
- SCAQTony 11y agoNo question that this matches the definition of manufacturing consent albeit if he guy was all ready on their side or not. I wonder if topics like education, biotech, military engagements, and torture are handled in a likewise fashion? A dime per word so to speak.
- 20after4 11y agoThis sounds like standard operating procedure in politics. The only surprise here (if there's any surprise at all) is that academics aren't at all immune to the same corruption.