In Story 3 of my personal experiences with ideological drama in academic peer review, we learned how editorial safetyism, caused by a worry to publish something that might be deemed “controversial,” delays important and corrective information from being published. We also learned that this occurs when the topic being discussed has to deal with sex or gender. Story 4 is another example of the issues that exist within peer review when one attempts to say that sex differences exist, and one is unlucky enough to have a social constructionist or determinist review their paper.
My guess is that 10% of the population falls into the category of being thought/word police, and it is this category that have risen to the top of their respective pile (public service, media, ESG or DEI).
10% are the opposition and 80% either don't care or are terrified of upsetting the first category. This includes those who run the academy, big business, scientific journals, etc.
Well done Dr Nuzzo. Amazing to hear the details of how just one nutty activist can slow the process down to a crawl. It makes me wonder if a peer reviewer were to take s similar stance, but in a pro male position what the response would be?
Thank you for continuing.
Well done getting it published.
My guess is that 10% of the population falls into the category of being thought/word police, and it is this category that have risen to the top of their respective pile (public service, media, ESG or DEI).
10% are the opposition and 80% either don't care or are terrified of upsetting the first category. This includes those who run the academy, big business, scientific journals, etc.
Well done Dr Nuzzo. Amazing to hear the details of how just one nutty activist can slow the process down to a crawl. It makes me wonder if a peer reviewer were to take s similar stance, but in a pro male position what the response would be?