bumby

34 ms·

511.
by bumby 2y ago
But what’s the point of the peer review process if it’s not sifting out poor academic work? It reads as if your point is talking in circles. “Don’t blame academia when academia doesn’t police itself” is not a strong stance when they are por
512.
by bumby 2y ago
> What is your most scarce resource if not time? I would argue attention is more valuable than time. After all, if all your time is spent paying attention to the wrong things, how valuable can time be? I would urge the author to look at
513.
by bumby 2y ago
I think the problem with a “publish first” paradigm is that it creates an enormous amount to sift through that is of unverified quality. We’re already publishing ever increasing amounts even with journal gatekeepers. Replicating research is
514.
by bumby 2y ago
David Brooks has a good book called “The Second Mountain” where he details the shift of priorities later in one’s life. The “first mountain” is what this guy achieved, monumental material success and freedom in pursuit of the “aesthetic lif
515.
by bumby 2y ago
To put a finer point on it, Storr’s thesis is there are three main domains that humans try to achieve status: dominance, competence, and virtue. Same end goal, but different means to get esteem. Put differently, people ultimately need to fe
516.
by bumby 2y ago
That’s correct, thanks for clarifying.
517.
by bumby 2y ago
William Storr writes about this. His stance is humans are hard wired for status within their social group. The problem is when all your status eggs in one basket and it disappears, it’s not good for your mental health. He advocates for havi
518.
by bumby 2y ago
I think the distinction in the examples given (corporations, military), science is being done but much less open.
519.
by bumby 2y ago
The featured article demonstrates that good review may not be a function of the number of reviewers available. I personally think that with a glut of reviewers, there's a higher chance an editor will assign a referee who doesn't
520.
by bumby 2y ago
I think citation is a noisy/poor signal for peer-review. I've refereed a number of papers where I dig into the citations and find the article doesn't actually support the author's claim. Still, the vast majority of citat
521.
by bumby 2y ago
I totally understand the case when an author doesn't sufficiently give context because they are so close to their previous work that they take it for granted that it's obvious (or, like you said, they are wary of auto-citation). I
522.
by bumby 2y ago
More/easier/cheaper dissemination of research.
523.
by bumby 2y ago
I know that’s the ideal but my original post ends with some skepticism at this claim. I’ve had more than a few come across my desk that are a poor fit. I try to be honest with the editors about why I reject the chance to review them. If I w
524.
by bumby 2y ago
Research and publication incur opportunity costs. For every manuscript that has to be reworked and submitted elsewhere, you’re losing the ability to do new research. So a researcher is left trying to balance the cost/benefit of additio
525.
by bumby 2y ago
I agree with a lot of this premise but this gave me pause: > under this model, no paper is ever rejected for publication; papers just get trapped in an infinite revision loop This could mean a viable paper never gets published. Most jou
526.
by bumby 2y ago
I didn’t read the comment to mean the editor would explicitly signal anything was noteworthy about the paper, but rather they would select referees from a specific pool of experts. From that standpoint, the referee would have no insight int
527.
by bumby 2y ago
Playing devils advocate, there isn’t a consensus on what is incremental vs what is derivative. In theory, the latter may not warrant publication because anyone familiar with the state-of-the-art could connect the dots without reading about
528.
by bumby 2y ago
A lot of the replies make it seem like there is some great over-arching coordination and intent between subsequent submissions, but I’ll offer up an alternative explanation: sometimes the reviewer selection is an utter crap shoot. Just beca
529.
by bumby 2y ago
Part of the idea is that journals help curate better publications via the peer review process. Whether or not that occurs in practice is up for some debate. Having a curated list can be important to separate the wheat from the chaff, especi
530.
by bumby 2y ago
Adam Grant once related an amusing rejection from a double-blind review. One of the reviewers justified the rejection with something along the lines of “The author would do well to familiarize themselves with the work of Adam Grant”
531.
by bumby 2y ago
The UCMJ is enacted under Congressional powers, therefore not an Executive power. Meaning it’s power flows from Article I. Further, it does not somehow supersede the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, meaning it must still operate within the f
532.
by bumby 2y ago
I'm finding it hard to understand your point or not finding that argument particularly convincing. We can socially change much faster than we can biologically evolve. Meaning, the change in birth age can be heavily influenced by social
533.
by bumby 2y ago
Although humans may be reaching reproductive age faster, aren't we generally reproducing later in life? That seems counter to the OPs point.
534.
by bumby 2y ago
They are generally under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So usually punished and sentenced within the military and eventually separated with a bad conduct or other-than-honorable discharge. Dishonorable discharge i
535.
by bumby 2y ago
I’m saying you need a more nuanced model of the world. I only agree in the premise that "you can never really know" in that every model will have some uncertainty, but some models reflect reality better than others. People like si
536.
by bumby 2y ago
Economies are incredibly complex. We should be also be concerned with long-term and second-order effects. Humans tend toward short term bias, meaning we’ll lose out on better long term outcomes. Forgive me, but I tend to give relatively lit
537.
by bumby 2y ago
You missed the point with an overly simplistic take. They shouldn’t be (more) profitable by essentially having the government subsidize the wages of their employees. That means we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing their profits. I’m pro-capit
538.
by bumby 2y ago
The majority of Americans would favor a public health system[1]. The difficulty is transitioning from what we have now to one. We aren't starting from a blank slate. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020
539.
by bumby 2y ago
Is this evidence of a bubble predicated on suppressed wages though? When lending costs were near-zero, housing was doing "great". That doesn't mean it's a smart or sustainable policy, even if we had gotten used to that a
540.
by bumby 2y ago
> That just makes those people unemployable Or, put differently, it makes the profits of the companies who hire them unsustainable. IMO allowing an non-livable wage in order to subsidize profits isn't a great policy.

More ›