The joke of academic journals

[Underestimated]

You poor little victim. I bet you keep a scrap book of all your imagined slights as you spew idiotic bs across the land.

That's it? I'm sure you can do better in a crybully sense.

 

[ecofarm]

That's it? I'm sure you can do better in a crybully sense.

Crybully. Is that your new thing? You must be a humanities student.

 

[bomberfox]

There are a million peer review junk publishers that are happy to take money and provide a panel of former academics to rubber stamp it. If that's a revelation, the person has never used journal articles in an academic setting.

Do people believe it's somehow possible to hold all journals to some high official government standard and thus the literally thousands of them are entirely without garbage? What a stupid and ignorant strawman in attempt to discredit science.

College 101: Get your journal articles from good sources, the ones endorsed by the university and your professor. If one decides, instead, to present an asinine article from a junk publisher, one will fail the assignment and perhaps the class.

Mankind quarterly is one such pseudo journal of former academics.

 

[ecofarm]

Mankind quarterly is one such pseudo journal of former academics.

One can pay for any number of junk publishers to rubber stamp and publish. It's basically self publishing under someone else's name by paying them. There's no peer review. There's not even editing or spell checking. There's no process whatsoever. You pay the money and they publish. Fooling such a publisher can hardly even be called fooling. The people who did this knew the publications print anything requested and so they pulled this stunt on them.

Only the uneducated, having never employed journal articles in an academic setting, could conclude that discredits science.

 

[bomberfox]

This, in a nutshell, is why we distinguish between "hard" and "soft" science.

Then again economics is a “soft” science

 

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

@ecofarm @Underestimated knock it off

 

[COTO]

Then again economics is a “soft” science

I agree.

Anybody who can look at the financial trainwrecks that are modern national economies and think "This is a product of scientific truth." needs their head examined.

Maybe "soft" is too generous a term. "Mushy science" is probably more accurate.

 

[Fishking]

The use of anecdotes to condemn 'academia' or even the 'humanities' is what's stupid and not valid. T

BTW, do you have ANY evidence that the 'consensus' in the 'humanities' is that "Blacks" cannot be "racist"?

I'll let you argue the point with our resident humanities rep below. Discuss your disagreement on whether Black people can be racist or not. I'm sure you'll be enlightened.

This thread is a moronic hit piece against science. For it to be successful, the target audience would need to be Stormfront.

 

[Fishking]

Your arguments are from ignorance. "Well, why don't they apply universal quality standards?"

You know nothing. You took a couple of examples of scams against known junk publishers and you think that discredits science. It's so pathetic. The height of ignorance.

That's still not an answer, but I guess that is an answer in itself.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I'll let you argue the point with our resident humanities rep below. Discuss your disagreement on whether Black people can be racist or not. I'm sure you'll be enlightened.

Has someone claimed Black folks can’t be racist? Sounds like a disingenuous talking point.

 

[Fishking]

Has someone claimed Black folks can’t be racist? Sounds like a disingenuous talking point.

Yes...a lot of people, to include our humanities rep, ecofarm.

 

[JasperL]

I'll let you argue the point with our resident humanities rep below. Discuss your disagreement on whether Black people can be racist or not. I'm sure you'll be enlightened.

OK, so you have nothing and expect us to treat ignorant opinion as evidence. I'll pass.

And one person's opinion doesn't ===> consensus. It appears you think that a random example cherry picked by you proves the rule. No wonder you dislike academia, because in that realm such a notion is dismissed as ignorant drivel.

 

[ecofarm]

That's still not an answer, but I guess that is an answer in itself.

You want to spend millions of tax dollars regulating the journal industry? There are millions of journals. We would need thousands of full time people to check every one and every article to make sure every publishing company is operating at government standards.

That's obviously not viable. No one wants to do that. You don't wanna do that.

The free market has done a fine job of satisfying our needs. There are many reputable journals employed by millions of students and professionals. These journals are of the highest standards and enjoy the benefit of having maintained such. It's up to each person, each student, each professor and each university to determine which journals are acceptable and which are not. That's personal responsibility.

The existence of junk publishers does not, in any way, discredit science.

 

[JasperL]

Yes...a lot of people, to include our humanities rep, ecofarm.

Oh, "a lot" have!! Well, then, if "a lot" have done something, then it's fine to attribute that viewpoint to the majority! Logic!!

 

[Fishking]

Oh, "a lot" have!! Well, then, if "a lot" have done something, then it's fine to attribute that viewpoint to the majority! Logic!!

You've already been dismissed and redirected to a different person. Have fun getting educated in insanity.

 

[Fishking]

You want to spend millions of tax dollars regulating the journal industry? There are millions of journals. We would need thousands of full time people to check every one and every article to make sure every publishing company is operating at government standards.

That's obviously not viable. No one wants to do that. You don't wanna do that.

The free market has done a fine job of satisfying our needs. There are many reputable journals employed by millions of students and professionals. These journals are of the highest standards and enjoy the benefit of having maintained such. It's up to each person, each student, each professor and each university to determine which journals are acceptable and which are not. That's personal responsibility.

The existence of junk publishers does not, in any way, discredit science.

Still not an answer.

 

[Fishking]

OK, so you have nothing and expect us to treat ignorant opinion as evidence. I'll pass.

Just like you passed on watching the video. At least you're consistant.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Yes...a lot of people, to include our humanities rep, ecofarm.

Nope. No one has ever insisted Black people can’t be prejudiced.

 

[ecofarm]

Still not an answer.

I did answer your question. Your question is why can't the US government spend a billion dollars regulating the journal industry. The answer is we have what we need and your suggestion would waste a billion tax dollars.

You're employing a socialist strawman to falsely indict academia.

 

[Fishking]

I did answer your question. Your question is why can't the US government spend a billion dollars regulating the journal industry. The answer is we have what we need and your suggestion would waste a billion tax dollars.

You're employing a socialist strawman to falsely indict academia.

No...you're answering a question I didn't ask. Answer my question that I directed to you.

 

[ecofarm]

No...you're answering a question I didn't ask. Answer my question that I directed to you.

How about you stop arguing from a position of ignorance and answer your own questions.

 

[Fishking]

Nope. No one has ever insisted Black people can’t be prejudiced.

*racist

Nice try switching words. How about you talk to our humanities guy here (ecofarm), and find out what he says about Black people not being able to be racist.

 

[Fishking]

How about you stop arguing from a position of ignorance and answer your own questions.

Do you even know what the question was anymore? I think you've just wandered off in a state of confusion, which is not suprising.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

*racist

Nice try switching words. How about you talk to our humanities guy here (ecofarm), and find out what he says about Black people not being able to be racist.

Black people are no different than anyone else. The difference is they have no ability to oppress on a systemic level as white folks do. Interpersonal racism is terrible but it’s not the issue. Systemic racism is.

 

[Fishking]

Black people are no different than anyone else. The difference is they have no ability to oppress on a systemic level as white folks do. Interpersonal racism is terrible but it’s not the issue. Systemic racism is.

You're really trying to weasel out of literally contradict yourself. Yes or No: Can Black people be racist?