An interesting case. I sympathized (and mostly agreed) with the author until I read this
"For example, I think massive changes proposed by the open science movement for post-publication peer review in public view would be much worse. Peer review by the self-selected mob is likely to give us only the 'facts' the mob wants."
Then I realized how little respect the author has for people who disagree with him. Things are now clearer for me. A mob?? Ohh...
The elephant in the room is that, once again, it's women doing most of the censoring because of "hurt feelings". Science, and even the rule of law, may not survive the onslaught of women in positions of power.
For an example of another place where science has little place, see the Rocky Mountain Public Health Training Center. Recently, when asked for data showing causality in various statistical associations between social circumstances and health outcomes (so-called Social Determinants of Health) the training center included 2 books. ‘Under the Skin: The Hidden Toll of Racism on American Lives and the Health of Our Nation’ by Linda Villarosa, along with ‘Weathering: The Extraordinary Stress of Ordinary Life in an Unjust Society’ by Arline T. Geronimus. Along with these books the training center gave links to government websites where data was to be found only by digging. Not much help to one asking for directions...
I think the editor’s suggestions are actually pretty reasonable. The portion of the review we read here appears somewhat long-winded and polemical. The editors changes preserve the meaningful criticism but with less hackles-raising bloviation. The editor made the review tighter and clearer and kept the focus on specific and relevant issues. Hopefully the paper’s authors will learn something from this feedback.
Writers often react defensively to editorial input, but usually editors are worth listening to. As to whether the editor has the *right* to edit a review before passing it on to the author, I do think the editor should obtain the consent of the reviewer first, especially if the reviewer is not anonymous.
Holy shit. I know that this kind of bias and authoritarianism pervade many fields, but this is the first time I've encountered unsanctioned redaction of peer reviews. Sadly, if this piece hadn't described the helpful editor as a woman, I would've guessed it. It seems that, when it comes to eliminating "harm" in the academy, a woman's work is never done. And I say this as an old, cranky woman.
Sadly, the events described here do not surprise me as this type of political correctness and pandering toward particular narratives in the guise of sensitive to protected group feelings has been growing in science for at least the last 20 years. It has become so bad that reviewers self censor for fear of being perceived as bigoted, and perhaps excluded from publishing in the future, or of causing unintended offense. I see this same thing going on in funding review panels as well.
The irony is that the editor's decision to modify a review in this fashion is actually a form of academic fraud and should be called out as such in the same way that modifying one's figures or dropping inconvenience data points constitutes academic misconduct. It appears the only solution to this bias is for reviewers to send the original text of the reviews to the authors...an action that negates any anonymity the review process holds. Personally, I have no problem with this. All reviews should have the reviewers names attached and be published with the article in question as a form of transparency. Keep the editors and journals honest since they clearly cannot be trusted.
The last point is the existence of an apparently secret APA manual being used to drive censorship. Secret rules are foolish as people inherently will violate rules they don't exist...but more importantly, the existence of secret rules is actually cover for individual judgement and malice as no one can then compare the rule to the action to see if the rule is sound and being applied fairly and uniformly. It sounds like this journal should be considered non-academic at this point and be publicly disregarded by the serious academic community. Those who continue to publish in it should similarly have such works excluded from citation as untrustworthy writings that have not undergone proper peer review.
An interesting case. I sympathized (and mostly agreed) with the author until I read this
"For example, I think massive changes proposed by the open science movement for post-publication peer review in public view would be much worse. Peer review by the self-selected mob is likely to give us only the 'facts' the mob wants."
Then I realized how little respect the author has for people who disagree with him. Things are now clearer for me. A mob?? Ohh...
You need to be careful about making things up, it delegitimizes, the balance of your essay..
Thank you for promoting free speech Lee, what is happening is very sad
The elephant in the room is that, once again, it's women doing most of the censoring because of "hurt feelings". Science, and even the rule of law, may not survive the onslaught of women in positions of power.
We are in the midst of civilizational ruin, and it has been intentionally wrought. Our task as Remnants in this Fourth Turning is to lead.
Thanks for holding the line and for exposing this. People should know what peer review means in practice these days.
very depressing read.
you're doing God's work here. I'm speechless at your relentless fight for good science
For an example of another place where science has little place, see the Rocky Mountain Public Health Training Center. Recently, when asked for data showing causality in various statistical associations between social circumstances and health outcomes (so-called Social Determinants of Health) the training center included 2 books. ‘Under the Skin: The Hidden Toll of Racism on American Lives and the Health of Our Nation’ by Linda Villarosa, along with ‘Weathering: The Extraordinary Stress of Ordinary Life in an Unjust Society’ by Arline T. Geronimus. Along with these books the training center gave links to government websites where data was to be found only by digging. Not much help to one asking for directions...
We are doomed
I think the editor’s suggestions are actually pretty reasonable. The portion of the review we read here appears somewhat long-winded and polemical. The editors changes preserve the meaningful criticism but with less hackles-raising bloviation. The editor made the review tighter and clearer and kept the focus on specific and relevant issues. Hopefully the paper’s authors will learn something from this feedback.
Writers often react defensively to editorial input, but usually editors are worth listening to. As to whether the editor has the *right* to edit a review before passing it on to the author, I do think the editor should obtain the consent of the reviewer first, especially if the reviewer is not anonymous.
Holy shit. I know that this kind of bias and authoritarianism pervade many fields, but this is the first time I've encountered unsanctioned redaction of peer reviews. Sadly, if this piece hadn't described the helpful editor as a woman, I would've guessed it. It seems that, when it comes to eliminating "harm" in the academy, a woman's work is never done. And I say this as an old, cranky woman.
Sadly, the events described here do not surprise me as this type of political correctness and pandering toward particular narratives in the guise of sensitive to protected group feelings has been growing in science for at least the last 20 years. It has become so bad that reviewers self censor for fear of being perceived as bigoted, and perhaps excluded from publishing in the future, or of causing unintended offense. I see this same thing going on in funding review panels as well.
The irony is that the editor's decision to modify a review in this fashion is actually a form of academic fraud and should be called out as such in the same way that modifying one's figures or dropping inconvenience data points constitutes academic misconduct. It appears the only solution to this bias is for reviewers to send the original text of the reviews to the authors...an action that negates any anonymity the review process holds. Personally, I have no problem with this. All reviews should have the reviewers names attached and be published with the article in question as a form of transparency. Keep the editors and journals honest since they clearly cannot be trusted.
The last point is the existence of an apparently secret APA manual being used to drive censorship. Secret rules are foolish as people inherently will violate rules they don't exist...but more importantly, the existence of secret rules is actually cover for individual judgement and malice as no one can then compare the rule to the action to see if the rule is sound and being applied fairly and uniformly. It sounds like this journal should be considered non-academic at this point and be publicly disregarded by the serious academic community. Those who continue to publish in it should similarly have such works excluded from citation as untrustworthy writings that have not undergone proper peer review.
Sad, very sad, thanks for reporting this. What is the source of your statement that Orwell and Tokheim collaborated on the Thought Poem?