61–70 of 103 posts
[flagged]
Your comment is funny because it’s completely opposite - economics has generally great track record and fraudulent results typically do not survive for long. Citation cartels and paper mills exist in all disciplines.
I am not arguing against the facts expressed in the piece. This is not an area in which I have any expertise. However, I am a bit uncomfortable with the pithy language used. It's possible (likely, even), that the fired editors deserve the pithiness, but it's still a bit weird to read that kind of prose, in a scientific context.
Doing them both together increases the amplitude of the signal at the cost of reducing the integrity of the signal.
If you wonder why the world is informationally too loud and too noisy these days, it's because everyone who does this is turning up the volume to be louder than others who are also, in turn, turning up the volume for the same reasons.
It'd be nice to check whether some llms still have "memory" of the paper she has deleted
That's the neat part. You can never know for sure.
I am not arguing against the facts expressed in the piece. This is not an area in which I have any expertise. However, I am a bit uncomfortable with the pithy language used. It's possible (likely, even), that the fired editors deserve the pithiness, but it's still a bit weird to read that kind of prose, in a scientific context.
Maybe I'm just naive or dense, but I'm not seeing language I'd be concerned about in the article? Help me get calibrated, is there something in particular that bothers you? or just a general vibe?
Literally zero need for that; none. And it's that kind of language that calls into question the authors motives. I went from "Excellent reporting here" to "This guy is emotional and not a reliable source of information" in 6 words.
Sayre's Law: Academic Politics Are So Vicious Because the Stakes Are So Small Maybe universities, tenure committees, and funding sources should stop measuring academics by vanity metrics such as H-Index and publication counts. And don't get me started on the tendency toward "minimum publishable units." That said, abusing power as an editor deserves a special place in hell...
I imagine most academics would gladly not participate in this game if their entire livelihood didn’t depend on it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment is funny because it’s completely opposite - economics has generally great track record and fraudulent results typically do not survive for long. Citation cartels and paper mills exist in all disciplines.
the economists have a terrible record which is why public opinion of them is low. I'd guess equal weight to meterologists forecasting.