4 ms·

You're speculating here. Let me speculate as well: if I were a research institution working with an advocacy group, and the group decided it wanted review and v

You're speculating here. Let me speculate as well: if I were a research institution working with an advocacy group, and the group decided it wanted review and veto authority over my research, I would go ahead and publish my research to that point and stop working with the advocacy group. Which speculation is right? There's no way to tell from the evidence in the article. Which is my point. Research manipulation is a strong claim, and requires strong evidence. There is none in this article.

Jensson 2y ago
> You're speculating here Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research, that is strong evidence of manipulation so you don't have to speculate any longer. The speculation is whether that manipulation was good or bad or even what kind of manipulation they are doing, but we don't have to speculate whether it happens or not.
- Supermancho 2y ago
  > Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research, This is not fact. There are multiple possibilities that do not include manipulation. If there was manipulation, there would be a recourse to pursue for fraud.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > If there was manipulation, there would be a recourse to pursue for fraud. Its legal to manipulate research except some extreme levels of manipulation. Legal manipulation is still manipulation, there is a reason companies pays so much to publish their own science, its so they can manipulate it. This is just the same as that. Example of legal way to manipulate research: Stop anything you don't like from getting published. There is nothing illegal about that but that can massively hurt science.
    - Supermancho 2y ago
      > This is just the same as that. You are making another baseless assumption. > Example of legal way to manipulate research: Stop anything you don't like from getting published. What I think you are implying, is that it won't be popularized enough, soon enough, to serve some interest. I only think this because, well...how would you stop someone from posting the original on torrent? Your concern has nothing to do with the science, per se, but how it's perceived. What if it passed through with 0 manipulation? The inverse thinking is being casually dismissed, which is bad faith. Good luck with that.

Jensson 2y ago

> You're speculating here Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research, that is strong evidence of manipulation so you don't have to speculate any longer. The speculation is whether that manipulation was good or bad or even what kind of manipulation they are doing, but we don't have to speculate whether it happens or not.

Supermancho 2y ago
> Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research, This is not fact. There are multiple possibilities that do not include manipulation. If there was manipulation, there would be a recourse to pursue for fraud.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > If there was manipulation, there would be a recourse to pursue for fraud. Its legal to manipulate research except some extreme levels of manipulation. Legal manipulation is still manipulation, there is a reason companies pays so much to publish their own science, its so they can manipulate it. This is just the same as that. Example of legal way to manipulate research: Stop anything you don't like from getting published. There is nothing illegal about that but that can massively hurt science.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    > This is just the same as that. You are making another baseless assumption. > Example of legal way to manipulate research: Stop anything you don't like from getting published. What I think you are implying, is that it won't be popularized enough, soon enough, to serve some interest. I only think this because, well...how would you stop someone from posting the original on torrent? Your concern has nothing to do with the science, per se, but how it's perceived. What if it passed through with 0 manipulation? The inverse thinking is being casually dismissed, which is bad faith. Good luck with that.