5 ms·

Vigilante is the wrong term on so many levels for her work. For starters it implies illegality, slipshod at best due process, and a proper authority. Elisabeth

Vigilante is the wrong term on so many levels for her work. For starters it implies illegality, slipshod at best due process, and a proper authority. Elisabeth Bik is essentially being a good citizen - doing exactly what she should as a reader calling out improprieties. I wish her luck in her endeavor and note that she proves what actual journals could do to stay relevant as a service when true distribution costs aren't there - vetting the data and giving a reason to pay for the data already peer reviewed by others.

bayesian_horse 7y ago
A vigilante does not need to do illegal things. The literal meaning from latin is "watch stander".
- tomrod 7y ago
  Current usage implies illegal things done. With due respect to Latin, the choice of vigilante is odd.
  - dmos62 7y ago
    Vigilante, in its current mainstream use, means a vigilant person who enacts justice without authority. The justice part is not in the etymology of the word, however. Vigilante, structurally, just means someone who is vigilant. I think calling a watch-dog or an independent peer-reviewer a vigilante is not inappropriate. It's a stylistic choice. I think it's important in literary education to be able to distinguish between what a word is and what cultural baggage it has (how it's used). Of course, where a word ends and its baggage begins is debatable, but it's a good debate to have.
    - tomrod 7y ago
      I think we are aligned on our view of the word choice
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      What about vigilantes in comic books and derivative media? Clearly positive! (though also illegal)
      - dmos62 7y ago
        I guess the negative images associated with the word are lynch mobs and the like.
grawprog 7y ago
>Vigilante is the wrong term on so many levels for her work Agreed, her work is independent peer review, an important part of science and the fundamental way science should work. The entire body of science should be constantly trying to disprove facts and remove falsehoods. Journals shouldn't have a monopoly on this. A rigorous peer review is a rigorous peer review whatever the source.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  Then we need to incentivise peer review, pay people to do it full-time, penalise journals that don't retract, etc. Currently it's not being treated as an important part of science, and that's hurting our progress.
dwoozle 7y ago
Yeah - a vigilante commits violent crimes to punish crimes that go unpunished by the authorities. This is... a person using above board methods to expose junk science.
- knolax 7y ago
  She just needs to beat up a couple of the journal authors.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Blind them with science.
buzzkillington 7y ago
She is doing peer review. There is nothing new about this. The publish or perish culture is new and it's eating away the foundation that our civilization is built on. If you can't trust science to be accurate you can't trust engineering to work. If you can't trust engineering to work planes fall out of the sky, ships sink and buildings collapse. After that you're back to the 17th century. We should have a lot less science done better. The current number of people being graduated as scientists is completely unsustainable. The number should be cut down by 10 to 100 times for the current funding.
- eecc 7y ago
  I was agreeing 100% to this post until I hit the last two sentences. WTF, are you out of your mind? Are you suggesting we should allow less people to graduate in order to fix the problem? Sorry for the ad-hominem but this it absolute folly. If there’s too much competition for funding the solution is not to further limit access to scientific profession but to increase funding for Chrissake! The mere fact that there’s so many graduates is literally living proof that there’s an enormous, yet wasted potential for scientific research and discovery. Get your logic in order please.
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    I see so many people follow the academia career trail not because they have a longing to do research, but because they have no idea what else to do with their lives and their professors think it's a good idea. Maybe culling the herd a bit would improve its quality. Maybe being forced out of the profession for misconduct would help prevent it. Maybe the bar needs to be raised a bit for entry so there's less competition and less pressure to cheat.
  - kennek 7y ago
    I don't want to speak for the OP, but maybe they meant we should be OK with failing people. At least in the US, if you show up to class, attempt to do the homework, and take the exams you are pretty much guaranteed to get your degree. I see this in graduate programs as well (although not the top programs like CMU or Standford). I even saw it when my wife went through med school - many of her peers partied, did horribly, even got caught cheating, but because they were spending 250k on that education no one ever failed out. I think we should set standards and not be afraid to uphold them. This will probably result in fewer scientists, but maybe it will become clear where we are failing them earlier in their education and allow us to improve that process.

bayesian_horse 7y ago

A vigilante does not need to do illegal things. The literal meaning from latin is "watch stander".

tomrod 7y ago
Current usage implies illegal things done. With due respect to Latin, the choice of vigilante is odd.
- dmos62 7y ago
  Vigilante, in its current mainstream use, means a vigilant person who enacts justice without authority. The justice part is not in the etymology of the word, however. Vigilante, structurally, just means someone who is vigilant. I think calling a watch-dog or an independent peer-reviewer a vigilante is not inappropriate. It's a stylistic choice. I think it's important in literary education to be able to distinguish between what a word is and what cultural baggage it has (how it's used). Of course, where a word ends and its baggage begins is debatable, but it's a good debate to have.
  - tomrod 7y ago
    I think we are aligned on our view of the word choice
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    What about vigilantes in comic books and derivative media? Clearly positive! (though also illegal)
    - dmos62 7y ago
      I guess the negative images associated with the word are lynch mobs and the like.

grawprog 7y ago

>Vigilante is the wrong term on so many levels for her work Agreed, her work is independent peer review, an important part of science and the fundamental way science should work. The entire body of science should be constantly trying to disprove facts and remove falsehoods. Journals shouldn't have a monopoly on this. A rigorous peer review is a rigorous peer review whatever the source.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
Then we need to incentivise peer review, pay people to do it full-time, penalise journals that don't retract, etc. Currently it's not being treated as an important part of science, and that's hurting our progress.

dwoozle 7y ago

Yeah - a vigilante commits violent crimes to punish crimes that go unpunished by the authorities. This is... a person using above board methods to expose junk science.

knolax 7y ago
She just needs to beat up a couple of the journal authors.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Blind them with science.

buzzkillington 7y ago

She is doing peer review. There is nothing new about this. The publish or perish culture is new and it's eating away the foundation that our civilization is built on. If you can't trust science to be accurate you can't trust engineering to work. If you can't trust engineering to work planes fall out of the sky, ships sink and buildings collapse. After that you're back to the 17th century. We should have a lot less science done better. The current number of people being graduated as scientists is completely unsustainable. The number should be cut down by 10 to 100 times for the current funding.

eecc 7y ago
I was agreeing 100% to this post until I hit the last two sentences. WTF, are you out of your mind? Are you suggesting we should allow less people to graduate in order to fix the problem? Sorry for the ad-hominem but this it absolute folly. If there’s too much competition for funding the solution is not to further limit access to scientific profession but to increase funding for Chrissake! The mere fact that there’s so many graduates is literally living proof that there’s an enormous, yet wasted potential for scientific research and discovery. Get your logic in order please.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  I see so many people follow the academia career trail not because they have a longing to do research, but because they have no idea what else to do with their lives and their professors think it's a good idea. Maybe culling the herd a bit would improve its quality. Maybe being forced out of the profession for misconduct would help prevent it. Maybe the bar needs to be raised a bit for entry so there's less competition and less pressure to cheat.
- kennek 7y ago
  I don't want to speak for the OP, but maybe they meant we should be OK with failing people. At least in the US, if you show up to class, attempt to do the homework, and take the exams you are pretty much guaranteed to get your degree. I see this in graduate programs as well (although not the top programs like CMU or Standford). I even saw it when my wife went through med school - many of her peers partied, did horribly, even got caught cheating, but because they were spending 250k on that education no one ever failed out. I think we should set standards and not be afraid to uphold them. This will probably result in fewer scientists, but maybe it will become clear where we are failing them earlier in their education and allow us to improve that process.