Read on Twitter
Nature: The Journal of Bullshit**
**Dear Twitter "Bullshit" is a well-established area of scholarly research as shown below, so please do not suspend me.
A Thread
1/n ending in END
**Dear Twitter "Bullshit" is a well-established area of scholarly research as shown below, so please do not suspend me.
A Thread
1/n ending in END
Nature's retraction of the alShebli article on mentoring is bullshit. Here is the original article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19723-8
This is, technically, being retracted by the authors -- all junior researchers who, I'd bet diamonds to donuts, were pressured into retracting it.
Here is their retraction notice. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20617-y
This sets a new low in scientific practices.
Note that, in their retraction, they declare:
"we believe that all the key findings of the paper with regards to co-authorship between junior and senior researchers are still valid."
This is the New Scientific Dissidence
Note that, in their retraction, they declare:
"we believe that all the key findings of the paper with regards to co-authorship between junior and senior researchers are still valid."
This is the New Scientific Dissidence
Its appalling that this group of nonWestern, junior researchers, 2/3 women, were bullied by another academic social media outrage mob into submission.
Protestations of #punchingdown? Nowhere to be seen. More Social Justice Bullshit.
Protestations of #punchingdown? Nowhere to be seen. More Social Justice Bullshit.
This is censorship, plain and simple, no matter how much Nature dresses it up as "after careful consideration, serious science, error error error blather blather."
You can find Nature's obsequiously transparent ridiculous justification for the retraction here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20618-x
It follows a form that is now rampant. Profess fealty to the norms of science and academic freedom, while then proceeding to provide "justifications" for violating those norms.
Nature also changed its review procedures in response to this terrible injustice of publishing a paper that found the wrong* thing.
*Wrong: Now defined as finding something that ran against Social Justice Narratives
*Wrong: Now defined as finding something that ran against Social Justice Narratives
Preventing "harm" has been the justification used by despots and authoritarians to suppress speech and academic freedom for millennia.
Greeks, Church, Caliphate, Soviets, actual (1930s) Nazis.
Greeks, Church, Caliphate, Soviets, actual (1930s) Nazis.
I threaded a while ago on this article in Nature that had unjustified assumption after assumption, and was little more than (left, of course) ax-grinding masquerading as science. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1322958168612392965.html
What's the over/under on the number of days before they retract that article?
I have it from a credible source that I cannot (yet) reveal that Nature is now sending out papers to activist groups for commentary/review.
Nature is an Apex Journal. Others are sure to follow.
Nature is an Apex Journal. Others are sure to follow.
This will now entrench political activism into the bedrock of scientific publishing.
When will they be consulting, say, The Tea Party, for articles (like the one I threaded on above) derogatory to conservatives? At the risk of using the same joke twice:
When will they be consulting, say, The Tea Party, for articles (like the one I threaded on above) derogatory to conservatives? At the risk of using the same joke twice:
Academics will bitch&moan about why half the U.S. does not trust their "expertise."
Answer?
They've thoroughly earned the distrust.
Answer?
They've thoroughly earned the distrust.
This has recently been referred to as
The Legitimation Crisis in Academia
by @peterboghossian in his interview by @andrewdoyle_com
It nails it, I highly recommend listening: https://www.spiked-online.com/podcast-episode/treason-of-the-intellectuals/
The Legitimation Crisis in Academia
by @peterboghossian in his interview by @andrewdoyle_com
It nails it, I highly recommend listening: https://www.spiked-online.com/podcast-episode/treason-of-the-intellectuals/
The answer is obvious, but will not be embraced anytime soon:
Cleave to truth, however imperfectly we seek it, in academic scientific publishing. Not activism, societal change, politics, or anything else.
Cleave to truth, however imperfectly we seek it, in academic scientific publishing. Not activism, societal change, politics, or anything else.
Policy *CAN* be based on research -- AFTER long periods of skeptical vetting by the scientific and wider communities.
Truth gets priority. Policy comes after truth.
Truth gets priority. Policy comes after truth.
In the meantime, the activism-first horse has left the barn. None of us will be putting it back anytime soon.
Actually, its not a horse. Its more like a stampede of horses.
Actually, its not a horse. Its more like a stampede of horses.
When the horses are stampeding like this, there is nothing to do but duckncover. Wait for it to pass.
Then get back to work trying to rebuild the barn and stable they destroyed stampeding.
END
Then get back to work trying to rebuild the barn and stable they destroyed stampeding.
END
