You can't be serious. You want some government or academic body to tell publishers what they can publish, and how they decide what to publish?
You can't be serious. You want some government or academic body to tell publishers what they can publish, and how they decide what to publish?
Again, the exercise proved nothing about a flaw, obvious or otherwise, in the "humanities" because about 99% or more of the "humanities" played no part in the exercise. And you have at time thrown in social sciences into your broad basket, when you weren't referring to 'academia' or 'the academy.'
Well, if you knew anything about 'academia' then you'd know colleges and tenure committees rank publishers internally. In the big research institutions like most state universities, the only publications that count are in the top one or two tiers. All the others go on the CV but you can have 30 pubs in lower tier journals and not get promoted. Those papers aren't necessarily better or worse. In fact, at least in the fields I'm familiar with (part of the social sciences), the top journals tend to prefer the data and econometric heavy papers and disregard more interesting pieces that don't have n's in the 1000s or 10s of thousands or even better in the millions, from proprietary data that's very hard and expensive to compile and reward gearheads, versus thinkers.
tl/dr
Yes, but your question has nothing to do with the use of anecdotes in a tiny slice of the "humanities" to condemn a half dozen major academic fields, and hundreds or thousands of minor ones that were not touched in any way by the exercise.
That's a hilariously dumb analogy.American Medical Association
You -
American Psychological Association
You -
American Peer-review Journal Associate
You -
It attempts to point out the flaws, which it did successfully. You're concept of "nothing" is flawed.
Your posts are now misinformation. I've stated multiple times my posts were specific and have proven such. If you cannot be honest and discuss a topic honestly I'd rather you not engage at all.
I'm sorry you feel the need to lie. I think I'm done. There's no point in communicating if you're purposely committed to false interpretation.
Alleged flaws at about 6 journals out of roughly 30,000. Several others rejected the hoax papers, and other journals still had the hoaxes under review. So the exercise demonstrated 'something' about the 48 journals that were part of the exercise (the wiki entry says there were 48 submissions, I assume that means to different journals versus double counting revisions to the same journal) and only 6 of them accepted the papers.
I'm not lying - I'm reading your words and using the common meanings of them. If you don't want to condemn all of 'humanities' don't use that term. You can easily refer to the specific journals or to the narrow fields within the broader humanities.
First of all, you're making a broad brush conclusion with no evidence, at all, zero, and even if your baseless statement you pulled from your backside is true, so what? You're still using anecdotes in a tiny slice of the 'humanities' to condemn the entire broad field, which is quite stupid, actually.
This, in a nutshell, is why we distinguish between "hard" and "soft" science.
Sorry, I thought cherry picked anecdotes proved something about all of academia, or at least all of 'humanities.' The article involved racism, so if that article takes a viewpoint, then I can attribute it to all of "humanities" - I thought. Seems you are telling me this is wrong in this setting, but OK in others. Can you explain? Thanks in advance!
The use of anecdotes to condemn 'academia' or even the 'humanities' is what's stupid and not valid. Thought this would be clear to a serious intellectual like yourself who claims to be versed in the academic side of the 'humanities.' Guess not. SAD!!
Getting called a moron and a white supremacist with not a shred of actual substance. I will make a note to create more. Maybe you could see your way to putting in transphobe and xenophobe in one sentence next time. Work on it.