4 ms·

> And now you’ve attached a high leverage handle to research allocation/gatekeeping and put it in deeply politicized hands that don’t care about the research.

> And now you’ve attached a high leverage handle to research allocation/gatekeeping and put it in deeply politicized hands that don’t care about the research. It's the editorial board of a journal. Gatekeeping published research is literally their job, always has been. And I think it's fair to conclude from their vocation that they care more about the research and less about the politics than all the non-scientists who've chimed in to express disagreement with the politics of their decision... Comparing an article outlining bunch of guidelines about language and requests to be careful and clear about sampling to the medieval Catholic Church is no more reasonable than comparing everyone decrying the concept of ethical barriers to research to Dr Mengele.

lliamander 4y ago
> And I think it's fair to conclude from their vocation that they care more about the research and less about the politics than all the non-scientists who've chimed in to express disagreement with the politics of their decision... No, it's not fair to conclude. A lot of us as practitioners in the field (engineers, data scientists, etc) must daily confront the conflict between social expectation (from managers, customers, etc.) and reality. On the other hand, an academic occupying a largely bureaucratic role within institutions that suffer from severe political monoculture might very well care more about their social standing than truth. Anyone who has been paying attention will know the subtext of these guides. It is not an unreasonable assumption to see this as targeting legitimate scientific research that undermines the present political zeitgeist.