3 ms·

> She then claims her letter is "science" Please link to the place where she actually makes this claim. > in her journal Not hers, and not a journal. > whil

> She then claims her letter is "science" Please link to the place where she actually makes this claim. > in her journal Not hers, and not a journal. > while his self-published piece is "methodological terrorism." She actually outlines the practices that ought to be singled out as unprofessional and unacceptable in the second to last paragraph, and none of those are mere self-publication. Have you considered the possibility that both sides are wrong? That this is crap science, and that the conduct of certain groups of people rallying against crap science is overzealous to the point of cruelty? Finally, it's also worth noting you've COMPLETELY proven Fiske's point about social media: sure, there are some valid critiques. But there are also people being absolutely vicious to people actually trying to science because of very trivial and obvious misunderstandings (e.g., because they think that APS Observer is a journal). I think to some extent that's a reasonable price for free discourse when things stay online and especially when they're anonymous, but you're calling a real person with a real job on the line corrupt because you made an incorrect assumption (that would've taken you 10 seconds of googling to correct).

mattmcknight 9y ago
I talk about the problems with Fiske and you say: "Cuddy herself, in the linked article, even asks: "Why not come to a conference or hold a seminar?"" I am not criticizing Cuddy. Fiske is editor of PNAS, former president of APS, and is putting her criticisms in APS Observer. The difference between a journal and an official magazine of a scientific organization is irrelevant in this concept, in that the supposed superiority of an edited journal is what is in question here when the editor is not good, and is not considering the context of the discussion. I am pointing out the utter hypocrisy in her argument that you shouldn't point out statistical errors on blogs, while she is pointing this out in a publication she controlled. She wants people to be able to protect their undeserved status, it is clear. The entire idea that science needs to be locked up in limited access journals (or magazines) is not a good one. The real issue is that the quality of PNAS has been pretty low. Fiske's response to that is to try to discourage open criticism. Open data is one of the reasons that people were able to find these errors. Resistance to publishing failed replications is not proper behavior. We have now seen PNAS publish a few letters describing errors, and hopefully the standards will improve. However, it hardly seems like a person whose response is to lean toward hiding the discourse is the right person to do it?
- mattmcknight 9y ago
  Here's a paper she edited on corruption. The conditions are there: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/34/10651 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/34/10651
- mattmcknight 9y ago
  Here's an interview with the brave researcher who asked her about this at a conference. Her quote "There is no mechanism in place that holds researchers accountable for practices that lead to a corrupted literature but cannot clearly be classified as fraud" is probably a less aggressive version of what I am saying.

mattmcknight 9y ago

I talk about the problems with Fiske and you say: "Cuddy herself, in the linked article, even asks: "Why not come to a conference or hold a seminar?"" I am not criticizing Cuddy. Fiske is editor of PNAS, former president of APS, and is putting her criticisms in APS Observer. The difference between a journal and an official magazine of a scientific organization is irrelevant in this concept, in that the supposed superiority of an edited journal is what is in question here when the editor is not good, and is not considering the context of the discussion. I am pointing out the utter hypocrisy in her argument that you shouldn't point out statistical errors on blogs, while she is pointing this out in a publication she controlled. She wants people to be able to protect their undeserved status, it is clear. The entire idea that science needs to be locked up in limited access journals (or magazines) is not a good one. The real issue is that the quality of PNAS has been pretty low. Fiske's response to that is to try to discourage open criticism. Open data is one of the reasons that people were able to find these errors. Resistance to publishing failed replications is not proper behavior. We have now seen PNAS publish a few letters describing errors, and hopefully the standards will improve. However, it hardly seems like a person whose response is to lean toward hiding the discourse is the right person to do it?

mattmcknight 9y ago
Here's a paper she edited on corruption. The conditions are there: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/34/10651 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/34/10651
mattmcknight 9y ago
Here's an interview with the brave researcher who asked her about this at a conference. Her quote "There is no mechanism in place that holds researchers accountable for practices that lead to a corrupted literature but cannot clearly be classified as fraud" is probably a less aggressive version of what I am saying.