- Joined
- Feb 25, 2021
- Messages
- 828
- Reaction score
- 215
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Agreed, it depends on the person and if they feel strongly about something they may take risks. It's up to the individual and their perspective of the subject as well as the risk they are willing to take to make a point.ashurbanipal said:Admittedly, me getting actually fired for such a thing would be rather extreme. But it's possible. More likely would be that I'd just get a tongue lashing delivered from my department head and a strongly-worded letter from a faculty senate committee (which, rumor has it, is what happened to Sokal). But I don't want any of that either, and it's certainly not compensated by satisfying some rando on the internet whose claims are highly suspect and arguments specious.
It's certainly subjective with many journals. Depending on whether the journal is a math/science, or a physics or a social/humanities. I profess I do see journals in the social sciences at a lesser level, that is my bias and I acknowledge that, but I can say I don't differentiate between Melus versus The Cambridge Quarterly..ashurbanipal said:Doesn't really clarify. Is the journal Nous "on the same level" as your example? What about Mind? What about Cognitive Computation? How about the Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics? Are articles apt to appear in these journals to count as "math/science" papers? What about the ones that appear only in the latter two?
Each effort was different, some references were legitimate others were entirely fictitious, and even the authors admit they were trying to provide conclusions the reviewers wanted to read and had a propensity for agreement.ashurbanipal said:Why would I need to be? I just found the text of one of the papers and went to my library and checked a couple of the references. They came up in the databases in journals that I recognize.
A simplistic example doesn't encompass how the re-write of Mein Kampf was done, so while you're example provides a point, it doesn't apply in the case of the actual paper submitted. The purpose of the rewrite wasn't to change the meaning, it was the opposite, to keep the meaning yet change the target of the meaning.ashurbanipal said:"Kill them all, God will sort them out."
I'll change three words:
"Call them all, we will help them out."
Suddenly the meaning is radically different. My point was that the authors say that their second attempt at using sentences from Mein Kampf was more extreme than just substituting "white males" for instances of "Jews." Without knowing what they did, it's hard to say that the whole "Mein Kampf" thing amounts to, well, anything.
That's fine. I'd ask then, what is the peer reviewers process and goal? Is it to verify the methodology and conclusion as being logical given the circumstances provided or is it deeper? If not then any logical hypothesis through conclusion are accepted regardless of how ludicrous or silly the subject. I disagree with that perspective, even in the humanities.ashurbanipal said:Again, why should I need to? I never said they are.