4 ms·

I dismissed the criticism because it was not substantive. > methodologically flawed How is it flawed? > fails to meet the standards of the bibliometric commu

I dismissed the criticism because it was not substantive. > methodologically flawed How is it flawed? > fails to meet the standards of the bibliometric community What standards? These are both unsubstantiated points, there is no counter argument because there is no argument to counter, all that can be done is to dismiss the argument which comes across as snarky.

danso 7y ago
If it's not clear, the quoted critic did not write the OP's submitted article. Perhaps "substantive" is the wrong word here, as I did not mean to imply the critic had the space to elaborate on what she meant. What I intended to convey was that her critique was based on valid grounds – e.g. a dispute on the methodology and research. Not "waaaaah i'm a SJW and this paper hurts my political beliefs so please ban it", which is how I interpreted the insinuation made by the parent commenter. And again, it's worth reiterating what the critic does not assert: that she doesn't want the paper to be published by her journal. She explicitly tells the reporter that her editor-in-chief has complete authority and independence.
- weberc2 7y ago
  We don't have enough evidence to conclude that the 'methodology' concern is legitimate and not merely pretense for a political concern. We need to know about the specific concern. I'm glad she's not asking for the paper to be suppressed because if her concerns are valid, they can be vindicated through the ensuing debate; if the debate renders her concerns invalid, that's good too. In either case, we're a little closer to the truth of the matter and we can make better decisions going forward.