4 ms·
You consider having to threaten the reputation of an academic journal by emailing the CEO directly before you even make it to the review for a well written, con
by horsawlarway 5y ago
You consider having to threaten the reputation of an academic journal by emailing the CEO directly before you even make it to the review for a well written, concise, critical paper "part of that process"?
Not even mentioning that it required the publicity and reputation of a well known figure (Sokal) to even open that door for them.
If that's the "shining light" of this industry - I sure as fuck don't want to see the dirty alleyway.
- jvanderbot 5y agoI didn't say that. I said the shining light was insiders helping. I also said the peer review process is challenging and that was an accurate representation. Two different things.
- native_samples 5y agoIs Sokal really an "insider" to psychology?
- horsawlarway 5y agoI'd argue no. He's a mathematician and physicist. You could claim that Harris Friedman is an insider - although I don't find a nearly retired (at the time - now actually retired) college professor to be particularly "inside" the journal space, but he is certainly a member of the field. The people who were insiders (Barbara Fredrickson and the reviewers at American Psychologist) are decidedly unhelpful and uninterested outside of throwing folks under the bus and equivocating around how so much fucking fraud/bullshit ended up in their papers.