In Story 1 of my personal experiences with ideological drama in academic peer review, we learned of an editorial assistant who resigned from her post because the journal she worked for decided to accept for publication my forthcoming paper on Woke medicine. This was certainly an unusual and dramatic tale, but the story I am about to share, Story 2, is my most concerning experience with peer review
Thanks Dr Nuzzo. It is very helpful to get a glimpse of the underbelly of the peer review process. It seems it is very easy to throw off with just one person being "offended" Glad it was eventually published.
One way of looking at this would be that those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't do either become peer reviewers for journals.
I have long felt that those who become society's arbiters of what is right or wrong, good or bad, are more likely to do so out of a deep psychological imbalance, rather than a desire to improve outcomes.
The take over of journals by both the forces of "woke", as well as big business (big food, big pharma, etc) has severely impacted on the beneficial effects of published research.
At the grass roots level, concerns about sex-based bias in research is purely esoteric. I am yet to hear of any concerns in my sports medicine practice regarding sexism in sports participation at a community level, which is the level of participation enjoyed by the vast majority of participants.
Thanks Dr Nuzzo. It is very helpful to get a glimpse of the underbelly of the peer review process. It seems it is very easy to throw off with just one person being "offended" Glad it was eventually published.
In the coming weeks, I'll be sharing four more stories that provide a further glimpse into the peer review process.
You have to question the mentality of a reviewer admitting to saying something as utterly stupid as ‘perception trumps data’.
One way of looking at this would be that those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't do either become peer reviewers for journals.
I have long felt that those who become society's arbiters of what is right or wrong, good or bad, are more likely to do so out of a deep psychological imbalance, rather than a desire to improve outcomes.
The take over of journals by both the forces of "woke", as well as big business (big food, big pharma, etc) has severely impacted on the beneficial effects of published research.
At the grass roots level, concerns about sex-based bias in research is purely esoteric. I am yet to hear of any concerns in my sports medicine practice regarding sexism in sports participation at a community level, which is the level of participation enjoyed by the vast majority of participants.
If I was a betting man, I'd short sell Science and load up on postmodernism futures.
I understand your frustrations.