5 ms·

The Associate Editor of Science who rejected this paper when it was submitted happens to be my wife's friend. They have been having long discussions about this

by mrb 7y ago

The Associate Editor of Science who rejected this paper when it was submitted happens to be my wife's friend. They have been having long discussions about this issue. My understanding is that although it's a valid study, it just doesn't bring anything new to the table that is worthy of publication. This paper refutes a 2008 paper that has already been refuted. So the Associate Editor decided there is no reason why this new refutation deserves to be published in Science. That's all. I don't think there is any case of scientific malpractice here. Keep in mind a high-profile journal like Science is extremely competitive and receives many paper submissions. They have to filter what they choose to publish based on some reason. And it seems to me their reason is perfectly valid. Now this is turning into a bigger dispute because the researchers started arguing with the Associate Editor on Twitter (I heard the verb "harass".) So he blocked them on Twitter. And this is making them more upset. Etc.

blue_devil 7y ago
This paper refutes a 2008 paper that has already been refuted. Could you cite?
- mrb 7y ago
  I don't know, sorry. I'm just repeating what I heard from my wife. I will ask her.
  - rjf72 7y ago
    I think this would be strong evidence for why this should be published, even if some no-name journal happened to publish a refutation at some unknown time in the past. I just searched for the paper 'Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits' on Google Scholar and found a large number of papers citing the paper in question, and searches on regular search engines turn up an even more vast number of mass media references to the paper. Yet I'm unable to find any reference to any replications of such including with keyword tuning. Whatever replication come refutation there may have been seems to have eluded not only society, but also scientists at large. I do believe both her and Science that the study was refuted at some point, but if nobody knows this and people keep assuming the study is meaningful - then this refutation is completely meaningless. Science as a journal brings the eyeballs and thus has, in my opinion, an obligation to publish data indicating that extremely influential studies they have previously published are likely flawed.
  - blue_devil 7y ago
    Please do. This study of "46 adults with strong political beliefs" from 2008 has since been cited by 576 other publications, including books (according to Google Scholar).
  - Kim_Bruning 7y ago
    I would be most curious for the cite myself!
- Balgair 7y ago
  From the article: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=poliscifacpub https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
Y_Y 7y ago
> Keep in mind a high-profile journal like Science is extremely competitive and receives many paper submissions. They have to filter what they choose to publish based on some reason. This is quite true, but I'd be wary of what you justify based on this fact alone. Discounting all of the interpersonal politics that goes into paper acceptance, the overall editorial policy of "high-profile" journals like this has a considerable effect on the scientific climate. It would be unfairly cynical (IMHO) to say that the editorial policies will be geared toward whatever the publisher expects to be the most profitable (even in the long term), but on the other hand it would be naïve to expect that they're even trying to do their best for the expansion of human knowledge and the betterment of society. What I'm getting at is that choosing what to include in Science et al. is a subtle but far-reaching tool, and maybe one better put in the hands of someone at least somewhat impartial, even if it's just some simple popularity contest counting votes on arXiv or similar.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Balgair 7y ago
> We believe that it is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all. The authors of the repudiation article are, without much doubt, trying to pick a fight. However, the larger issue is whether they should be. The article has some good points in it, the comments here on HN also pull out some good point (and some bad ones), and the 'replication crisis' has been raging for almost a decade now with any sign of slacking. The authors are being jerks, I feel, but dammit, they make a good set of points. Look, I've been there too. The deadlines just keep piling up, the students stay just as needy, and the grant funding is just getting harder and harder to find (esp for new PIs). A bunch of older white guys trying to be asshats on purpose over in the corner and then pointing things out for political points (my opinion) is just like: Dude, really?, screw right the hell off. Its just another thing on the giant pile of crap that you can't deal with at all. But, we all know that US based 'Big-S/R1' Science is not a healthy place. It's never really been one, but we all know it now, and, to me at least, it feels like it's not getting any healthier anytime soon. The scathing blog posts keep coming, the #MeToo issues keep getting swept aside, the flagrant abuse of grad students is getting worse. Writing these guys off is not healthy and is not going to help. Yeah, they're kinda jerks. But we have to listen to them and take them just as seriously as anyone else. Their points are valid. They are right to call out Science magazine for not publishing recalcitrant papers and relegating them to journals that often have insane paywalls. Yeah, I know, Science gets enough papers by 9am January 1st to run for the whole year and never see a drop in quality or impact. I've heard that exact same phrase from every journal editor, it's like 'live, laugh, love', it's 'basic' now. And it's a crap excuse. Trying to shoe horn these jerks as 'alt right' or 'political' is not helping. Honestly, breaking Science up so that it would be able to publish these smaller repudiation articles would be better, and we all know the older PIs wouldn't let that happen, as their egos are tied up in the metrics too. Brushing these jerks off isn't the right thing to do. Science, as a R1 type thingy, is heading for a meltdown in the US. We need to take these jerk-bags seriously, along with all the abused grad students, the new PIs, the people of color, the women, etc.
- jonhendry18 7y ago
  There is something to the complaint that Science shouldn't publish "Rabbits are telekinetic psychopaths" but leave the non-replication "Nope!" article to the Journal for the Society for the Study of Coprophagous Mammals, circulation 10. They could probably run a page or two of capsule summaries of such non-replication papers, with full content on their website.
southern_cross 7y ago
I gave up on Science decades ago. I started reading more Nature instead thinking it might be better, but I've given up on it now, too. Some folks who have read Nature for far longer than I did will tell you that it has always been problematic, even more so than Science. I fail to understand why either of these publications is held in particularly high regard.

by mrb 7y ago

blue_devil 7y ago

This paper refutes a 2008 paper that has already been refuted. Could you cite?

mrb 7y ago
I don't know, sorry. I'm just repeating what I heard from my wife. I will ask her.
- rjf72 7y ago
  I think this would be strong evidence for why this should be published, even if some no-name journal happened to publish a refutation at some unknown time in the past. I just searched for the paper 'Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits' on Google Scholar and found a large number of papers citing the paper in question, and searches on regular search engines turn up an even more vast number of mass media references to the paper. Yet I'm unable to find any reference to any replications of such including with keyword tuning. Whatever replication come refutation there may have been seems to have eluded not only society, but also scientists at large. I do believe both her and Science that the study was refuted at some point, but if nobody knows this and people keep assuming the study is meaningful - then this refutation is completely meaningless. Science as a journal brings the eyeballs and thus has, in my opinion, an obligation to publish data indicating that extremely influential studies they have previously published are likely flawed.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  Please do. This study of "46 adults with strong political beliefs" from 2008 has since been cited by 576 other publications, including books (according to Google Scholar).
- Kim_Bruning 7y ago
  I would be most curious for the cite myself!
Balgair 7y ago
From the article: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=poliscifacpub https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

Y_Y 7y ago

> Keep in mind a high-profile journal like Science is extremely competitive and receives many paper submissions. They have to filter what they choose to publish based on some reason. This is quite true, but I'd be wary of what you justify based on this fact alone. Discounting all of the interpersonal politics that goes into paper acceptance, the overall editorial policy of "high-profile" journals like this has a considerable effect on the scientific climate. It would be unfairly cynical (IMHO) to say that the editorial policies will be geared toward whatever the publisher expects to be the most profitable (even in the long term), but on the other hand it would be naïve to expect that they're even trying to do their best for the expansion of human knowledge and the betterment of society. What I'm getting at is that choosing what to include in Science et al. is a subtle but far-reaching tool, and maybe one better put in the hands of someone at least somewhat impartial, even if it's just some simple popularity contest counting votes on arXiv or similar.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Balgair 7y ago

> We believe that it is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all. The authors of the repudiation article are, without much doubt, trying to pick a fight. However, the larger issue is whether they should be. The article has some good points in it, the comments here on HN also pull out some good point (and some bad ones), and the 'replication crisis' has been raging for almost a decade now with any sign of slacking. The authors are being jerks, I feel, but dammit, they make a good set of points. Look, I've been there too. The deadlines just keep piling up, the students stay just as needy, and the grant funding is just getting harder and harder to find (esp for new PIs). A bunch of older white guys trying to be asshats on purpose over in the corner and then pointing things out for political points (my opinion) is just like: Dude, really?, screw right the hell off. Its just another thing on the giant pile of crap that you can't deal with at all. But, we all know that US based 'Big-S/R1' Science is not a healthy place. It's never really been one, but we all know it now, and, to me at least, it feels like it's not getting any healthier anytime soon. The scathing blog posts keep coming, the #MeToo issues keep getting swept aside, the flagrant abuse of grad students is getting worse. Writing these guys off is not healthy and is not going to help. Yeah, they're kinda jerks. But we have to listen to them and take them just as seriously as anyone else. Their points are valid. They are right to call out Science magazine for not publishing recalcitrant papers and relegating them to journals that often have insane paywalls. Yeah, I know, Science gets enough papers by 9am January 1st to run for the whole year and never see a drop in quality or impact. I've heard that exact same phrase from every journal editor, it's like 'live, laugh, love', it's 'basic' now. And it's a crap excuse. Trying to shoe horn these jerks as 'alt right' or 'political' is not helping. Honestly, breaking Science up so that it would be able to publish these smaller repudiation articles would be better, and we all know the older PIs wouldn't let that happen, as their egos are tied up in the metrics too. Brushing these jerks off isn't the right thing to do. Science, as a R1 type thingy, is heading for a meltdown in the US. We need to take these jerk-bags seriously, along with all the abused grad students, the new PIs, the people of color, the women, etc.

jonhendry18 7y ago
There is something to the complaint that Science shouldn't publish "Rabbits are telekinetic psychopaths" but leave the non-replication "Nope!" article to the Journal for the Society for the Study of Coprophagous Mammals, circulation 10. They could probably run a page or two of capsule summaries of such non-replication papers, with full content on their website.

southern_cross 7y ago

I gave up on Science decades ago. I started reading more Nature instead thinking it might be better, but I've given up on it now, too. Some folks who have read Nature for far longer than I did will tell you that it has always been problematic, even more so than Science. I fail to understand why either of these publications is held in particularly high regard.