6 ms·
The authors seem to have a background in economics, does that really fit the research topic of that paper?
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
The authors seem to have a background in economics, does that really fit the research topic of that paper?
- j_wtf_all_taken 7y agoOne of the sources: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0126821 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... >> This finding implies that individuals with genetic predispositions for an earlier AFB had a reproductive advantage and that natural selection operated not only in historical, but also in contemporary populations. The observed postponement in the AFB across the past century in Europe contrasts with these findings, suggesting an evolutionary override by environmental effects and underscoring that evolutionary predictions in modern human societies are not straight forward. << Yeah, so basically we got a simple model by two economists vs. decades of empirical data? It'd be funny if it wouldn't sound like a scientists version of the "immigrants will have a lot of children and replace us" lie.
- DissidentSci 7y agoBecause that never happened before in human history: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Who+We+Are+and+How+We+Got+Here&ref=nb_sb_noss https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Who+We+Are+and+How+We+Got+Here&re...
- j_wtf_all_taken 7y agoWhat exactly is your point?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- j_wtf_all_taken 7y agoSorry, my mistake, forget it. I should have read your other comments first before replying.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- aluren 7y agoA lot of people love to chime in about "genetics" or "heritability" despite having no background in actual genetics (no, evopsych or behavioral "genetics" don't count) and publish in low-impact factor journals that are virtually unknown in the actual genetics community (or derided as a joke, like plos one). I'm not sure what to make of this paper to be honest.
- DissidentSci 7y agoWhat you should understand is: most geneticists wouldn't have had the balls to write this even though it's obvious to them. Someone did have the courage to write it. Now wrap your head around what they wrote.
- aluren 7y agoIt's not "obvious" at all and I've never heard anyone in the community express such sentiments, even in more informal settings. I don't even know what "courage" you're referring to. The courage to be associated to a journal with an IF < 4, maybe?
- xamuel 7y agoThis obsession with journal impact factor is toxic in academia. It's what allows parasitic publishing companies to continue to extract rents despite contributing nothing to science for decades. The majority of papers are envelope-pushers, churned out in enormous numbers because of "publish or perish". Academics who need CV bullet-points are going to churn out quick papers that go with the status-quo, with bibliographies filled with papers that do likewise. So of course journals that push the status-quo are going to have high impact factors. Back when surgeons were laughing at the crackpot telling them to wash their hands, a paper on the unnecessity of hand-washing would be well-cited.
- j_wtf_all_taken 7y agoI don't get the point. If science does care about the JOURNAL impact factors too much, why then, as a consequence, would everyone publish in low impact factor journals?