Read on Twitter
In light of C&W retraction scholars are wondering how pseudoscientific & racist works got published in Psych& #39;s top journals.
This APS tweet consider that "Further Reflections" would be a solution to this situation.
I may have some informative anecdotal evidence to share: https://twitter.com/PsychScience/status/1275162883928752128">https://twitter.com/PsychScie...
This APS tweet consider that "Further Reflections" would be a solution to this situation.
I may have some informative anecdotal evidence to share: https://twitter.com/PsychScience/status/1275162883928752128">https://twitter.com/PsychScie...
TLDR: this is neither new, nor a & #39;solution& #39;, and allows for **more** editorial bothsidesism and "viewpoint diversity".
Here& #39;s my experience with Psych Inquiry, a Psych journal (IF=10) whose format is a target article followed by "comments" (voir & #39;Further Reflections& #39;).
Here& #39;s my experience with Psych Inquiry, a Psych journal (IF=10) whose format is a target article followed by "comments" (voir & #39;Further Reflections& #39;).
My hope is sharing my *personal* experience w/ a similar system may help illuminate what& #39;s to expect from the proposed solution by PS editors.
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="❗️" title="Rotes Ausrufezeichen" aria-label="Emoji: Rotes Ausrufezeichen">disclaimerhttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="❗️" title="Rotes Ausrufezeichen" aria-label="Emoji: Rotes Ausrufezeichen"> it is another article by C&W (+below) which I personally see as unscientific, containing wild claims & racial overtones.
Below you find my off the cuff email to the editor directly after reading C&W& #39;s paper.
Before I share the reply, I want to emphasize this is *not* about the editor or the journal in question. No, this is about the commonly shared concept of bothsidesism, reinforced by the belief that as scientists, we should consider all options, all arguments, wherever it leads.
While true, it is an extremely naive position, often at the expense of minority groups. Sure scientists should open to all explanations but don& #39;t mistake openness for an excuse to be ignorant about structural & institutional forces upholding & legitimizing systemic racism.
The reply said a. the great thing about the Journal is that it publishes a target article of about 40 pages and several 20 page commentaries making points like mine; & b. the goal was was to take & #39;the debate& #39; off political twitter (see above) and have the challenges all public.
I also got kindly invited to write a commentary. So what& #39;s the problem?
In a world of heterodoxy &/or bothsidesim, the points I expressed about the scientific flaws of the piece and its dangers were not reason for concern. And they were not taken for their face value either.
In a world of heterodoxy &/or bothsidesim, the points I expressed about the scientific flaws of the piece and its dangers were not reason for concern. And they were not taken for their face value either.
(eg, if I was misguided, it was my turn to have an earful). But my scientific considerations (& worries about social impact) were taken as opinions in a continuum - they represented another & #39;side& #39;. And this is one danger of editorial bothsidesism: the opinion-ization of science.
And naive as we are, we continue to be oblivious to the fact editorial bothsidesism *in scientific journals* is the ultimate goal of viewpoint diversity: everything is up for debate, every idea becomes worthy of discussion and argumentation - no matter how "controversial".
And after *everything* that is going on in the world (eg Floyd/BLM), the PS editors tweet highlight that the fear of being called liberal or (ideological) biased is far worse than publishing pseudoscience. This is the very real and powerful consequence of & #39;viewpoint diversity& #39;.
In sum, editorial bothsideism is how (I think) C&W and colleagues got away with at least 3/4 high-impact publications and circumventing scientific scrutiny. DON& #39;T LET IT TAKE ROOT.
-
How about my personal experience? Was it worth it to write the comment?
-
How about my personal experience? Was it worth it to write the comment?
It was not. It was *not* a good experience, neither personally nor scientifically. From the date of the email you can deduce I gave up my end of year vacations (Xmass and New Years) to write my comment. Did it bring anything positive? Hardly. But it did bring explicit attacks
on social media and targeting of a known Twitter bully.
But the more painful aspect of this experience is to realize most academics don& #39;t have the slightest clue about how conservative academia is, how hierarchical, privilege-boosting, and status quo prone this all is.
But the more painful aspect of this experience is to realize most academics don& #39;t have the slightest clue about how conservative academia is, how hierarchical, privilege-boosting, and status quo prone this all is.
As for the writing itself, what I think most folks don& #39;t get is that it extremely difficult to write a scientific criticism when the work is barely (and only tangentially) scientific.
It is difficult to not take it personally when you can read between the lines rather than written words. The authors clearly spend a significant efforts embellishing the language/phrasings/arguments:
The weasel words as Nick Brown put it.
The weasel words as Nick Brown put it.
It is so puzzling to me that a sig. N of poorly constructed works were repeatedly given airtime and figure at Psych& #39;s most impactful journals while we witness exemplary scholars quitting academia for lack of recognition on the importance of scrutinizing scientific work.https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤯" title="Explodierender Kopf" aria-label="Emoji: Explodierender Kopf">
If you are interested in a summary of C&W piece, and why I took issue with it being published at a high-impact factor *scientific* journal see this thread. At its end, it connects with all commentaries (un/gated) and other threads on C&W& #39;s paper. https://twitter.com/Flavio_Azevedo_/status/1237415374032982018">https://twitter.com/Flavio_Az...
