191–200 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with that is, at least in my experience, that you read such things once from a reputable source and never check it again.
When I was studying undergrad psych, Psychology Today was falling into disrepute. Are they still a reputable source, today?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You trust science because it has the highest probability of being accurate. What's the alternative? Most people aren't capable of analysis scietific research to see if it's correct. What makes something political? If new research shows that X product is dangerous and republicans, who that company donates to, come out and disagree with the research they just made it political. Now, someone like you, can just say "This…
Jesus Christ, the point of science is to REMOVE trust - not be the least worst option. Science that cannot exist without trust is faith.
That’s what we want in society right? Perks for doing hard work and then being recognized for it. That’s what “street cred” is. Maintaining a reputation is hard work and the fast pass and acknowledgment from the broader society is your reward. As in this person has more than proved himself, let’s not vet him as much.
You don’t want to go on reputation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoever told you that about your cites is probably right -- you shouldn't cite yourself while calling out that you are citing yourself. You should cite yourself the same you that site any other work. The second part is probably unavoidable. If you're working on something super specialized when all your reviewers are the six other people who work on it then sure, it'll be unblinded. Not much we can do there sadly.
I disagree, the style to write as a "neutral" observer (often writing in passive voice) is frowned upon nowadays for good reason. Part of that is also that the information if the authors wrote a citation or not can be important to a reviewer. For example it is unfortunately quite common that authors publish results in a salami tactic to maximize the number of publications. There can be a significant difference in imp…
The reputation of the author and their behaviour wrt the citations used should be considered, I agree with you that it's important information. Maybe the reviewer of an individual paper shouldn't be considering that though, maybe that should primarily be considered in a second review stage or in the context of meta-reviews? Idk, but the spirit of using passive voice in the context of research makes more sense to me.
Double-anonymous/blind reviewing is completely standard in most areas of computer science, e.g. networking (SIGCOMM, NSDI, IMC, HotNets, MobiCom, MobiSys), systems (OSDI, SOSP, USENIX ATC, HotOS), security (Usenix Security, S&P), machine learning (NeurIPS and ICML), graphics and HCI (SIGGRAPH and CHI), and at least some top-tier theory conferences (like FOCS). So I think most computer scientists would agree with the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was studying undergrad psych, Psychology Today was falling into disrepute. Are they still a reputable source, today?
Psychology Today is not great in general, but the article I linked to is written by a social psychology PhD (Lee Jussim).
Setting this aside for a deeper read, but it appears at first glance that the concerns revolve around statistical technique rather than methodological soundness?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoever told you that about your cites is probably right -- you shouldn't cite yourself while calling out that you are citing yourself. You should cite yourself the same you that site any other work. The second part is probably unavoidable. If you're working on something super specialized when all your reviewers are the six other people who work on it then sure, it'll be unblinded. Not much we can do there sadly.
I disagree, the style to write as a "neutral" observer (often writing in passive voice) is frowned upon nowadays for good reason. Part of that is also that the information if the authors wrote a citation or not can be important to a reviewer. For example it is unfortunately quite common that authors publish results in a salami tactic to maximize the number of publications. There can be a significant difference in imp…
Why is this unfortunate? I'd argue that splitting results in multiple publications is a) Riskier for authors (higher chance of rejection) and b) More convenient for readers (each paper requires less mental load, being focused on a single aspect). So, even if there's a payoff for authors, it doesn't come for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Academics just like every other aspect of human life is full of politics and this includes peer reviews as well. Papers regularly get panned for variety of reasons that have nothing to do with actual content of the paper and maybe even worse sometimes because the reviewer happen to be working on something similar and want secure a bigger grant for themselves.
That's false. Trust the science.
https://sigbed.org/2022/08/22/the-toxic-culture-of-rejection...
https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/research-misco...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The data is objective but the quality of the research is subjective. For example if my sample size was 150 for some study that's subjective whether it was sufficient of size
Not true. There are objective statistical tests regarding sample sizes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoever told you that about your cites is probably right -- you shouldn't cite yourself while calling out that you are citing yourself. You should cite yourself the same you that site any other work. The second part is probably unavoidable. If you're working on something super specialized when all your reviewers are the six other people who work on it then sure, it'll be unblinded. Not much we can do there sadly.
I disagree, the style to write as a "neutral" observer (often writing in passive voice) is frowned upon nowadays for good reason. Part of that is also that the information if the authors wrote a citation or not can be important to a reviewer. For example it is unfortunately quite common that authors publish results in a salami tactic to maximize the number of publications. There can be a significant difference in imp…
The other argument you have is also questionable. It doesn't matter at all the identity of the citer when using citations to argue that a topic of research is important. If you cite 20 papers and they are mostly from the very same author, it doesn't matter if you're the author: any reviewer will realize the claim is shaky -- or not, if all those papers happens to be actually outstanding.
Double blind is imperfect but miles better than single blind. And we shouldn't list made-up defects that don't stand to scrutiny to it.