Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

gowers.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 232 posts

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#141

Post by tptacek »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #137
tptacek wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is clear on its face that the paper is not of the quality, or even really the subject matter, to merit inclusion in NYJM. It's not even a close call. It's a little embarrassing to see people on HN not able to recognize that. This isn't a political question; it's a "being able to read and evaluate journal articles" question.

So no, there's no way of telling whether or not an editorial change in direction was made or a mistake. Instead we can just talk about journals in general, with nobody knowing what the hell was going on in this particular case. And all the other comments regarding other journals and their consistency of quality is where, exactly? I'm also missing any discussion of standards to judge quality articles and their applica…

Sure.

1. Go to NYJM and select a bunch of articles at random.

2. Read Hill's article.

3. Observe that NYJM papers are all wall-to-wall theoretical math.

4. Observe that Hill's paper has hardly any math at all, and inexplicably ends with an appendix with quotations about male variability, which is itself longer than the elementary "proof" in section 5.

It's simply not a theoretical math paper. Journals have subjects. NYJM's subject is not this.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#142

Post by pgeorgi »

tptacek wrote: post #135
pgeorgi wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either my communication style is horrible or you go to great lengths to misunderstand me. Either way it's sad. Papers should, in general, be judged by their merit. The editor of the Intelligencer did so and wanted to publish it in "Viewpoints", essentially an op-ed section. That was shot down. Not for quality, or unsuitability for the medium, but because of a political campaign. Therefore the paper was _not_ judged f…

You can simplify the discussion here by clarifying what you think of the paper's inclusion in NYJM. The paper's status in Intelligencer is of much less impact to the "scientific precedent" of this story, since the Intelligencer is barely science at all.

The way it was done? Problematic to say the least, in every step taken at NYJM:

1. The underground inclusion by a single editor, seemingly bypassing their processes and the other editors

2. The revisions to politicize the paper explicitly (potentially on request of that editor)

3. Lack of context on how and why that paper ended up in the journal even though it's not in line with its normal body of work

4. The silent removal, again bypassing publishing processes (eg retraction)

5. The reuse of the pages taken up by the paper with some other paper. Depending on how this turns out, the new paper will be in the uncomfortable position that its citations are mixed up with citations for another, controversial paper. It might have been better to leave the pages empty except for some explanation about what happened to the paper that used to be there, if only to keep it fair for the new paper.

All around it's a mess.

Why I'm referring to the Intelligencer all the time is that Hill and Tabachnikov wanted to place it in the Intelligencer first, and they likely knew about its standing in the math community, so they probably agree with your assessment of the paper's mathematical value.

At least as told by Hill, NYJM only entered the picture because a mob forced the Intelligencer to give up and then because Rivin turned up, and considered a fast track possible (and then, it seems, doctored the process at NYJM to implement that "quick referee").

I consider mob rule a bigger threat to publishing at large than a one-off weak paper that went in. We have enough of the latter (and while we should strive to minimize them, we could live with one more), but IMHO we need to discourage the former before it becomes the new normal.

Therefore my proposal to publish it somewhere of at least equivalent stature (to the Intelligencer, the original publication the paper should end up in) that offended bilbo0s so much: show the mob that backroom campaigning isn't welcome.

I'd prefer it done with proper processes and a big, fat disclaimer though, not like what apparently happened at NYJM.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#144

Post by Dowwie »

rdl wrote: post #113
Dowwie wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does Barbara Streisand have to do with this? She had a beautiful voice and was loved by many. Memories...

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/04/15/...

prepare yourself for disappointment when this change doesn't manifest

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#145

Post by tptacek »

pgeorgi wrote: post #142
tptacek wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can simplify the discussion here by clarifying what you think of the paper's inclusion in NYJM. The paper's status in Intelligencer is of much less impact to the "scientific precedent" of this story, since the Intelligencer is barely science at all.

The way it was done? Problematic to say the least, in every step taken at NYJM: 1. The underground inclusion by a single editor, seemingly bypassing their processes and the other editors 2. The revisions to politicize the paper explicitly (potentially on request of that editor) 3. Lack of context on how and why that paper ended up in the journal even though it's not in line with its normal body of work 4. The silent…

You think it's a good idea to publish an off-topic paper in a serious scientific journal to make a point about mob rule? Aren't you then the one arguing to muck with the scientific record on behalf of a political agenda?

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#146

Post by kgwgk »

tptacek wrote: post #132
enriquto wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is alright that a journal rejects a paper. There are thousands of papers rejected everyday, this is the basis of peer review. What is strange is that a paper is "disappeared"!

The paper is on Arxiv for everyone to read. But apparently, it was introduced into NYJM through subterfuge, and the peer review board demanded (understandably) that it be removed. Again: its presence in NYJM, given that journal's remit, was embarrassing to everyone involved. Not just politically but as mathematicians.

Making the paper disappear after having published it, replacing it with a different paper without any explanation at all of what did happen, should also be embarrassing for everyone involved.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#147

Post by tptacek »

kgwgk wrote: post #146
tptacek wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper is on Arxiv for everyone to read. But apparently, it was introduced into NYJM through subterfuge, and the peer review board demanded (understandably) that it be removed. Again: its presence in NYJM, given that journal's remit, was embarrassing to everyone involved. Not just politically but as mathematicians.

Making the paper disappear after having published it, replacing it with a different paper without any explanation at all of what did happen, should also be embarrassing for everyone involved.

It very much is embarrassing to everyone involved; there's no denying that. It's less clear to me that the outcome is bad. Hill's paper really doesn't make sense in NYJM. It's so out of place I think it's actually pretty embarrassing to Hill as well.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#148

Post by pgeorgi »

tptacek wrote: post #145
pgeorgi wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way it was done? Problematic to say the least, in every step taken at NYJM: 1. The underground inclusion by a single editor, seemingly bypassing their processes and the other editors 2. The revisions to politicize the paper explicitly (potentially on request of that editor) 3. Lack of context on how and why that paper ended up in the journal even though it's not in line with its normal body of work 4. The silent…

You think it's a good idea to publish an off-topic paper in a serious scientific journal to make a point about mob rule? Aren't you then the one arguing to muck with the scientific record on behalf of a political agenda?

"At least the same stature" as the Intelligencer (which had agreed to publish it originally and retracted due to reasons that were not scientific concerns). A paper that is, as you noted, "not serious".

I guess that doesn't apply to the NYJM, but I didn't ask for them to be the journal doing the publishing (just noted that their approach of dealing with the fallout of Rivin's machinations was unfortunate).

If push came to shove and I'd be on the board of editors of a publication of same or higher posture than an affected publication with overlapping audience, I hope I'd at least consider doing that (but as mentioned: not through subterfugue, but officially).

That's political, but in a way it's merely self-preservation: Niemöller's poem "First they came ..." and all that.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#149

Post by quotemstr »

tptacek wrote: post #8

There is more going on than this. It's important to know a bit about the venues in question. Mathematical Intelligencer isn't really a journal at all; it's literally a magazine, carried on the shelves it bookstores. It runs some original research but also poetry and jokes and general cultural coverage. NYJM is, on the other hand, a serious (if online-only, lower-tier) theoretical mathematics journal. Ted Hill's paper…

The image that comes to mind when reading this comment is that of the Iraqi information minister proclaiming on television that the Americans have been defeated while M1 Abrams tanks roll by leisurely in the background of the shot. You're attempting to defend the powers that be, as is your habit, but in this instance, their conduct is indefensible, and consequently, absurdities have come out of your keyboard.

The article obviously was not "trolling". Sokal was trolling. Whatever the quality of the paper, it was made in earnest, as we can tell by both the done of its presentation and its iterative development.

Further, the paper wasn't "rejected". Instead, it was accepted twice and silently unpublished after shady back-channel pressure. Regardless of whether the paper should have been accepted in the first place, a public retraction was the correct next step.

The article to which this comment thread is attached is sophistry. Mathematical ability being connected to "raw brainpower" is a myth? The author must be a die-hard social constructionist. That school of thought is thoroughly discredited, and to use it to defend the censorship on display in this affair will only further shred the credibility of science as an enterprise.

I get the sense from your comment --- both its structure and diction --- that you want readers to think of this affair as responsible adult moderation of some internet forum (as if people are expected to accept heavy-handed moderation there), an exercise in containing a low quality shitpost that nobody would want to read anyway, and not think of this affair as what it actually is, a demonstration of the corruption of science by nepotistic political censorship.

It's unbelievable, really, and that explains why nobody's believing it. It's this post and its blatant PR damage control spin that ought to be flagged as intellectually unstimulating, not the Quillette exposé.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#150

Post by root_axis »

frebord wrote: post #6

Honest question, the general physical differences between the sexes or even races are undeniable, so why is it so taboo to talk about the differences that almost certainly exist in our minds?

Saying "the differences between the races are undeniable" is a tautology; races are a construction based on observable differences, it could not be any other way. The ill-defined phenotypical traits that are used to group people into the various races only account for the minuscule fraction of their DNA that can be discerned with the naked eye.
Post reply on HN