4 ms·

>In a move likely to attract criticism, a peer-reviewed journal Literally the first sentence of the article. His original presentation was heavily debated on T

by pnako 7y ago

>In a move likely to attract criticism, a peer-reviewed journal Literally the first sentence of the article. His original presentation was heavily debated on Twitter and other places. Now that a revised version is published, everyone will be able to publish rebuttals in various (peer-reviewed) journals. That's how it's supposed to work.

moomin 7y ago
This is approaching weird semantic questions: what is non-peer-reviewed content in a peer-reviewed journal? I mean, normally the answer would be “Sponsored advertising” but I don’t think Strumia is paying them. And this isn’t how it’s supposed to work. Substandard papers don’t get published. Papers from people with no grounding in the subject matter don’t get the big journals. The debate is between legitimate scholars and studies, there’s no evidence this paper passes either bar. This isn’t politics, this is science. You don’t just publish your opinion and shout “Debate me!”
- buboard 7y ago
  > Papers from people with no grounding in the subject matter don’t get the big journals This is up for the editors and reviewers to decide. They obviously decided it's ok > You don’t just publish your opinion Most big journals have an opinion section, sometimes about policies. Scientific debates are great imho
- pnako 7y ago
  What makes you think the paper was not peer reviewed? This is from the paper: >Acknowledgements I thank the referees for their comments; the InSpire team for clarifications; Guy Madison for discussions and suggestions; Riccardo Torre for (among many things) having implemented the WGND name-gender association; Sabine Hossenfelder for having independently replicated the results in fig. 8b and section 3.1 using arXiv data [Hossenfelder et al.(2018)]; more colleagues who prefer not to mentioned. I like the last sentence in particular and I'm not surprised :)
- xamuel 7y ago
  >Papers from people with no grounding in the subject matter don't get the big journals No! Papers should be judged by their merits, not by their authors. This is why in many fields, it's customary to send a blinded version of the paper to the peer reviewers, without the author's name or affiliation (this is called double-blind peer review).

by pnako 7y ago

moomin 7y ago

This is approaching weird semantic questions: what is non-peer-reviewed content in a peer-reviewed journal? I mean, normally the answer would be “Sponsored advertising” but I don’t think Strumia is paying them. And this isn’t how it’s supposed to work. Substandard papers don’t get published. Papers from people with no grounding in the subject matter don’t get the big journals. The debate is between legitimate scholars and studies, there’s no evidence this paper passes either bar. This isn’t politics, this is science. You don’t just publish your opinion and shout “Debate me!”

buboard 7y ago
> Papers from people with no grounding in the subject matter don’t get the big journals This is up for the editors and reviewers to decide. They obviously decided it's ok > You don’t just publish your opinion Most big journals have an opinion section, sometimes about policies. Scientific debates are great imho
pnako 7y ago
What makes you think the paper was not peer reviewed? This is from the paper: >Acknowledgements I thank the referees for their comments; the InSpire team for clarifications; Guy Madison for discussions and suggestions; Riccardo Torre for (among many things) having implemented the WGND name-gender association; Sabine Hossenfelder for having independently replicated the results in fig. 8b and section 3.1 using arXiv data [Hossenfelder et al.(2018)]; more colleagues who prefer not to mentioned. I like the last sentence in particular and I'm not surprised :)
xamuel 7y ago
>Papers from people with no grounding in the subject matter don't get the big journals No! Papers should be judged by their merits, not by their authors. This is why in many fields, it's customary to send a blinded version of the paper to the peer reviewers, without the author's name or affiliation (this is called double-blind peer review).