Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Do We Have Rights As Authors, To Make Complaint About "unethic" Journal Editors?

ethics rights&permissions aestethics

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#18 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2848 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 09:41 PM

most of non-ideal scientists (I call them as scientist but not all of them exactly...) believe so.

 

but it is not realistic to believe that it would be just and worthy method to cite only most cited articles. not at all.

 

teherefore,I consider most of theoricians/professors as non-ideal,sure!.

Those Non-Ideal Scientists are what we call "Cranks" meaning they don't have ideas that are within the bounds of science but rather pseudoscience. Cranks are a very bad thing for science as they populate science with crackpottery which makes real science seem less creditable to the general population which does not know the difference. So, Cranks should be immediately pointed out and removed from the scientific picture as such, otherwise we risk having "False Science" believed by unsuspecting readers which are not scientists. That to say I completely disagree with your statements, "Real Scientists" STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF SCIENCE. what you are talking about is pseudo-scientists which should be removed from any access to their works being seen as they are False. Promoting "Pseudoscience" as "Real Science" has become a increasing problem in the scientific community.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 26 December 2019 - 09:49 PM.


#19 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 09:45 PM

Those Non-Ideal Scientists are what we call "Cranks" meaning they don't have ideas that are within the bounds of science but rather pseudoscience. Cranks are a very bad thing for science as they populate science with crackpottery which makes real science seems less creditable to the general population which does not know the difference. So, Cranks should be immediately pointed out and removed from the scientific picture as such.

I thought crank referred to a member of the fire brigade..

#20 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2880 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 09:52 PM

see more closely please!

 

look at the figure..

 

I think this peer review system should collapse in next few decades..

https://peerj.com/ar...00bdb7-43287125

Ok, I'm going to point out implications and cojectures here. These are the things you should be able to identify and "red flag" anything they are a part of. It doesn't mean they are always bad/wrong, but often enough they correlate to being such.
 

  1. the title: " underrepresented groups in STEM" There's an implication bias in the title. How are these groups under-represented? Why SHOULD they have higher representation? There is an under-representation by ratio of Cretins in Science/Technology/Engineering/Maaths. Should we get more Cretins into it? Also under-represented in STEM are murderers, cannibals, racists, and others. Should the very proportions be inherently desirable?
  2. "we assessed authors’ perceptions of scientific aptitude, productivity, and career trajectory after receiving an unprofessional peer review." So bias sample, and something Dunning-Kruger indicates would be wildly skewed.
  3. "unprofessional" is a very vague classification. This usage of it is like using "gender" interchangeably with "fashion."  That kind of sloppy wording is what encourages foolish thoughts.
  4. "traditionally underrepresented groups in STEM fields were most likely to perceive negative impacts" Perception is NOT a viable metric. Even if it was, treating some group with 'kid gloves' because they are innately more emotionally volatile is NOT productive.


#21 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2848 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:17 PM

 

Ok, I'm going to point out implications and cojectures here. These are the things you should be able to identify and "red flag" anything they are a part of. It doesn't mean they are always bad/wrong, but often enough they correlate to being such.
 

  1. the title: " underrepresented groups in STEM" There's an implication bias in the title. How are these groups under-represented? Why SHOULD they have higher representation? There is an under-representation by ratio of Cretins in Science/Technology/Engineering/Maaths. Should we get more Cretins into it? Also under-represented in STEM are murderers, cannibals, racists, and others. Should the very proportions be inherently desirable?
  2. "we assessed authors’ perceptions of scientific aptitude, productivity, and career trajectory after receiving an unprofessional peer review." So bias sample, and something Dunning-Kruger indicates would be wildly skewed.
  3. "unprofessional" is a very vague classification. This usage of it is like using "gender" interchangeably with "fashion."  That kind of sloppy wording is what encourages foolish thoughts.
  4. "traditionally underrepresented groups in STEM fields were most likely to perceive negative impacts" Perception is NOT a viable metric. Even if it was, treating some group with 'kid gloves' because they are innately more emotionally volatile is NOT productive.

 

 

1. I agree that is Bias and should not be allowed

 

2. People often over-estimate themselves and their correctness this is true, people will generally believe falsely that they are always correct or their views of reality are correct. The Perceptions of someone that believes false information is called being delusional.

 

3. While Unprofessional is vague, I think simply incorrect or false information is more accurate, it doesn't necessarily encourage foolish thoughts but rather describes them. 

 

4. I agree with this statement too, people that tell lies should not be cared about as they are vermin that are delusional trying to intentionally spread false information.

 

All this to say that they are either very delusional and stupid enough to fall for their own "Bullshit" or otherwise they are intentionally spreading something that is false information for personal gain.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 26 December 2019 - 10:20 PM.


#22 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 11:59 PM

I keep correcting myself

 
2. People often over-estimate themselves and their correctness this is true, people will generally believe falsely that they are always correct or their views of reality are correct. The Perceptions of someone that believes false information is called being delusional.
 


I know all about that. I have corrected my picture of the quantum world so any times. I think what makes me good as a physicist is the fact that I no longer need others to point out issues with my math or issues with my grasp of particle physics. I do it almost every day without anyone saying a thing. My whole big picture has changed dramatically over years of self-scrutinizing something I believed was the final product as many as 3 years ago.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ethics, rights&permissions, aestethics