3 ms·
I downvoted you because this felt like an egregious strawman: > I never understood the attitude of “trust us, it exists, but no one is allowed to question it”.
by danso 7y ago
I downvoted you because this felt like an egregious strawman:
> I never understood the attitude of “trust us, it exists, but no one is allowed to question it”. I think Feynman said something like “I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question”.
The researcher who reviewed his paper, and is quoted as being extremely critical of it, did not evince the irrational mindset that you imply:
> The study contains “several unsubstantiated claims,” she says, and doesn’t properly cite or discuss papers that come to conflicting conclusions. “Overall,” Sugimoto says, “the manuscript does not provide a convincing understanding of the literature or the methods, lessening the credibility of the results.”
Furthermore, this reviewer is on the board of the publication in question. And despite her critique, she affirms the authority and independence of the editor-in-chief to publish the paper:
> In an email, Sugimoto wrote that “To maintain the editorial integrity of our journal, the Board of ISSI does not interfere with individual decisions on manuscripts: the Editor-in-Chief assumes full responsibility for editorial decisions.”
Who do you attribute this "no one is allowed to question it" mindset to?
- xamuel 7y agoI despise this recent (yes, it is recent) assumption that an author is obligated to include everything related in any way in their bibliography. A bibliography should be a list of papers that informed the paper in question; not every paper has to be a comprehensive survey (how exhausting that would be). If I win the lottery and find a counterexample to the Riemann Hypothesis by testing random numbers, I should be able to publish a paper with zero references, if I so desire; I should by no means be obligated to cite every paper ever written on the Riemann Hypothesis. This is just a lazy cop-out used by reviewers who want to reject papers but can't find any solid objections to the contents of those papers.
- danso 7y agoI agree that if we give the critic no benefit of the doubt, we might interpret her complaint as petty filibustering done in bad faith. But we only have that short quote from that critic. We don't know if she elaborated – or even if she were asked by the reporter to elaborate – on what she believes the significance of those not-included papers to be. If she is referring to major omissions, as in, the omitted papers are generally well-known and respected in the field, then her complaint is not a "lazy cop-out" nor a filibuster in bad faith, but a legitimate rebuttal.