3 ms·

Put it on arXiv or f1000 for fucks sake. Who actually believes psychology papers anyways? The vast majority are fishing expeditions as best i can tell. When th

by apathy 10y ago

Put it on arXiv or f1000 for fucks sake. Who actually believes psychology papers anyways? The vast majority are fishing expeditions as best i can tell. When the field starts enforcing minimal standards (as expected for, say, clinical trials, or even genetics studies nowadays) maybe someone will give a shit. Until then people like this guy who actually seek the truth will be ostracized.

danso 10y ago
The field is pressured to adopt and enforce standards when practitioners speak out and get noticed by the establishment. Much of getting noticed, for better or worse, involves getting published in a traditional journal.
- apathy 10y ago
  As opposed to actually doing science. This is the root of the problem. By the time I finished grad school I had been cited over 5000 times; that didn't make me a better scientist. Actually implementing clinical trials and supervising junior researchers, that did. (Oddly, so did reviewing others' work) Traditional journals are an artifact of the past. They interfere with the proper assignment of priority for discovery and their opaque review processes give some truly terrible work the stamp of "peer review". I submit some work to them, as requested by my colleagues, but if it were all my decision I'd never again send a paper to a journal that doesn't allow preprints (or considers it "prior publication") because that process is truly ass backwards. Fortunately NIH and NSF have started to notice the same. It's only a matter of time now.
nostrebored 10y ago
The government believes psychology research and actively legislates against it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
laughinghan 10y ago
As stated in the concluding paragraph, she put it on researchgate.
- apathy 10y ago
  ugh, that site is the worst. At least f1000 has open review and ultra cheap APCs.
jmpeax 10y ago
arXiv is not a peer reviewed journal.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  That is correct, and the author did make their research available online (on researchgate and OSF). The arXiv simply isn't the right preprint server for this, as its range of subjects doesn't cover the author's: "Open access to 1,160,864 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics". For all the hate that peer review gets on HN, it plays a significant role in science and it's important to have a quality screening for papers. Preprint servers and peer-reviewed conferences and journals work best in tandem. The way it works here is that when we submit something to a conference, we also submit a technical report to arXiv, which we update to incorporate the reviewers' feedback. The "complete" and preferred version is usually the one on arXiv (no length restriction, so you can actually explain and prove stuff). Conferences are much more than just publication venues, though: lots of collaborations start there, and interesting discussions can be had.
  - apathy 10y ago
    The entire replication chain is a statistics exercise. But whatever -- your point is sound, preprints should complement peer review. It's only Elsevuer and a few others that try to prevent this. I guess we can hope that fat old professors die off & younger academics decline to edit for journals that impede progress. It works great in physics.

by apathy 10y ago

danso 10y ago

The field is pressured to adopt and enforce standards when practitioners speak out and get noticed by the establishment. Much of getting noticed, for better or worse, involves getting published in a traditional journal.

apathy 10y ago
As opposed to actually doing science. This is the root of the problem. By the time I finished grad school I had been cited over 5000 times; that didn't make me a better scientist. Actually implementing clinical trials and supervising junior researchers, that did. (Oddly, so did reviewing others' work) Traditional journals are an artifact of the past. They interfere with the proper assignment of priority for discovery and their opaque review processes give some truly terrible work the stamp of "peer review". I submit some work to them, as requested by my colleagues, but if it were all my decision I'd never again send a paper to a journal that doesn't allow preprints (or considers it "prior publication") because that process is truly ass backwards. Fortunately NIH and NSF have started to notice the same. It's only a matter of time now.

nostrebored 10y ago

The government believes psychology research and actively legislates against it.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

laughinghan 10y ago

As stated in the concluding paragraph, she put it on researchgate.

apathy 10y ago
ugh, that site is the worst. At least f1000 has open review and ultra cheap APCs.

jmpeax 10y ago

arXiv is not a peer reviewed journal.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lorenzhs 10y ago
That is correct, and the author did make their research available online (on researchgate and OSF). The arXiv simply isn't the right preprint server for this, as its range of subjects doesn't cover the author's: "Open access to 1,160,864 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics". For all the hate that peer review gets on HN, it plays a significant role in science and it's important to have a quality screening for papers. Preprint servers and peer-reviewed conferences and journals work best in tandem. The way it works here is that when we submit something to a conference, we also submit a technical report to arXiv, which we update to incorporate the reviewers' feedback. The "complete" and preferred version is usually the one on arXiv (no length restriction, so you can actually explain and prove stuff). Conferences are much more than just publication venues, though: lots of collaborations start there, and interesting discussions can be had.
- apathy 10y ago
  The entire replication chain is a statistics exercise. But whatever -- your point is sound, preprints should complement peer review. It's only Elsevuer and a few others that try to prevent this. I guess we can hope that fat old professors die off & younger academics decline to edit for journals that impede progress. It works great in physics.