3 ms·

> I assume the answer is no: you clearly know it's wrong, and haven't done anything about it yet. You expect a first year junior grad student (e.g., me before

> I assume the answer is no: you clearly know it's wrong, and haven't done anything about it yet. You expect a first year junior grad student (e.g., me before i was inured to it) to blow the whistle on their senior, well respected, famous, advisor? Is this a joke? You think change like this happens bottoms up from the indentured servant^1 class? lol. > It makes no sense, but people would behave worse without the illusion. wut. we've taken a large step off the sane road here. democratic/fair/equitable processes are open. full stop. if you want to debate me on this you're gonna have to whip out a whole lot of philosophy, history, data, etc. ^1 do you know how many phd students in the US are foreign nationals on student visas? if you had to pick between majority and minority which one would you pick? hint: you're wrong it's the other one.

wizzwizz4 3y ago
I would expect to be able to raise such concerns myself, and not face much blowback for doing so; however, attitudes towards academic conduct vary around the world. There are even places where you can't report data fabrication without risking your entire academic career. > democratic/fair/equitable processes are open. full stop. Secret ballots. Double-blind medical trials. The sealing of juvenile court records. It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be: what might make sense in one academic field (e.g. applied particle physics) might be total nonsense in another (e.g. partial differential equations).
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  > Secret ballots. Double-blind medical trials. The sealing of juvenile court records. in the first and the third you're conflating the processes of the governing body with the experiences of the governed - the governed need to be protected from the governing body, not the other way around - that is the whole point of demanding that the governing body operate in the open. like bro politicians (as politicians) have no right to privacy, but we as individual citizens, governed by them do. how is it possible that i need to explain this to you? the second isn't a democratic process of any kind. > It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be: what might make sense in one academic field (e.g. applied particle physics) might be total nonsense in another (e.g. partial differential equations). oh but it is and you'd have to be as obtuse as my reviewers to argue differently. like bro there isn't a scholar/thinker/activist on this subject anywhere in the world that agrees with you (politicians definitely agreew with you though).
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    Anonymous reviewers does not necessarily mean anonymous reviews. > like bro there isn't a scholar/thinker/activist on this subject anywhere in the world that agrees with you Not a 'bro'; also https://clauswilke.com/blog/2014/10/12/in-defense-of-anonymous-peer-review/ https://clauswilke.com/blog/2014/10/12/in-defense-of-anonymo... https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802044438 https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802044438 https://doi.org/10.1038/249601a0 https://doi.org/10.1038/249601a0 . I pretty much agree exactly with Claus O. Wilke, and haven't read beyond the abstract of the other two, but these were all on the first page of the first web search query I tried. It's not well-documented, but even OpenReview permits anonymous reviews: see https://docs.openreview.net/reports/conferences/openreview-neurips-2021-summary-report https://docs.openreview.net/reports/conferences/openreview-n... > After the notification deadline, accepted papers were made public and open for non-anonymous public commenting, along with their anonymous reviews, meta-reviews, and author responses. Your (incorrect) perception of an overwhelming consensus probably isn't why you hold the position you do. I'd like to hear your actual justification, if you would be happy to share it.
    - mathisfun123 3y ago
      You are blithely jumping back and forth between government and the peer review process/academic process. So let me put it to you like this: please show me a democratic country with an anonymous judiciary. EDIT: actually the US has the FISA courts which are effectively secret courts and those are widely understood to be a great harm and totalitarian (rather than democratic). > Your (incorrect) perception of an overwhelming consensus probably Did you know that the word consensus does not include the word unanimous? Just like there is a consensus on climate change despite some exceptional crank scientists there is a consensus on democratic processes being open - again i will emphasize that i never claimed there was consensus about whether peer review should be open but about whether government should be (and my own claims about peer review are informed by that consensus). > Not a 'bro'; One of my favorite things is when someone is either so pretentious or so clueless as to reject a (gender neutral) colloquialism.
      - wizzwizz4 3y ago

wizzwizz4 3y ago

I would expect to be able to raise such concerns myself, and not face much blowback for doing so; however, attitudes towards academic conduct vary around the world. There are even places where you can't report data fabrication without risking your entire academic career. > democratic/fair/equitable processes are open. full stop. Secret ballots. Double-blind medical trials. The sealing of juvenile court records. It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be: what might make sense in one academic field (e.g. applied particle physics) might be total nonsense in another (e.g. partial differential equations).

mathisfun123 3y ago
> Secret ballots. Double-blind medical trials. The sealing of juvenile court records. in the first and the third you're conflating the processes of the governing body with the experiences of the governed - the governed need to be protected from the governing body, not the other way around - that is the whole point of demanding that the governing body operate in the open. like bro politicians (as politicians) have no right to privacy, but we as individual citizens, governed by them do. how is it possible that i need to explain this to you? the second isn't a democratic process of any kind. > It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be: what might make sense in one academic field (e.g. applied particle physics) might be total nonsense in another (e.g. partial differential equations). oh but it is and you'd have to be as obtuse as my reviewers to argue differently. like bro there isn't a scholar/thinker/activist on this subject anywhere in the world that agrees with you (politicians definitely agreew with you though).
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  Anonymous reviewers does not necessarily mean anonymous reviews. > like bro there isn't a scholar/thinker/activist on this subject anywhere in the world that agrees with you Not a 'bro'; also https://clauswilke.com/blog/2014/10/12/in-defense-of-anonymous-peer-review/ https://clauswilke.com/blog/2014/10/12/in-defense-of-anonymo... https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802044438 https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802044438 https://doi.org/10.1038/249601a0 https://doi.org/10.1038/249601a0 . I pretty much agree exactly with Claus O. Wilke, and haven't read beyond the abstract of the other two, but these were all on the first page of the first web search query I tried. It's not well-documented, but even OpenReview permits anonymous reviews: see https://docs.openreview.net/reports/conferences/openreview-neurips-2021-summary-report https://docs.openreview.net/reports/conferences/openreview-n... > After the notification deadline, accepted papers were made public and open for non-anonymous public commenting, along with their anonymous reviews, meta-reviews, and author responses. Your (incorrect) perception of an overwhelming consensus probably isn't why you hold the position you do. I'd like to hear your actual justification, if you would be happy to share it.
  - mathisfun123 3y ago
    You are blithely jumping back and forth between government and the peer review process/academic process. So let me put it to you like this: please show me a democratic country with an anonymous judiciary. EDIT: actually the US has the FISA courts which are effectively secret courts and those are widely understood to be a great harm and totalitarian (rather than democratic). > Your (incorrect) perception of an overwhelming consensus probably Did you know that the word consensus does not include the word unanimous? Just like there is a consensus on climate change despite some exceptional crank scientists there is a consensus on democratic processes being open - again i will emphasize that i never claimed there was consensus about whether peer review should be open but about whether government should be (and my own claims about peer review are informed by that consensus). > Not a 'bro'; One of my favorite things is when someone is either so pretentious or so clueless as to reject a (gender neutral) colloquialism.
    - wizzwizz4 3y ago