K van M retweeted
Some people argue that discrimination is rampant in our society.
Others argue that few people discriminate.
Who is right?
This article by Lee Jussim takes on this question.
(I found this article to be a fascinating read. It was a little mind-bendy at first, but then it became very intuitive.)
Jussim flags what he calls the "discrimination paradox."
The apparent paradox is that some high-quality audit studies find large disparities (e.g., in callbacks) against minority applicants, while other equally rigorous studies—lab experiments, field studies of everyday interactions, and platform-based choices—find very few discriminatory acts.
The key point is arithmetic, not a paradox. Outcome gaps in audit studies don’t map cleanly onto the number of discriminatory actors. This is especially true when base rates are low. When positive outcomes are rare (e.g., job callbacks), even a small number of biased decisions can generate large relative disparities in outcomes.
By contrast, many non-audit studies focus directly on individual decisions or acts (e.g. responses in games) and therefore estimate how often discrimination actually occurs at the decision level. Those studies often find discrimination happens infrequently, even though it is systematic.
This helps reconcile findings that otherwise look contradictory: large disparities in outcomes can coexist with discrimination occurring rarely at the level of individual decisions.
So who’s right: those who say discrimination is rare, or those who say only a few people discriminate?
According to this paper, both are.
K van M retweeted
Este artículo denuncia que la publicación científica (sobre todo en las grandes editoriales comerciales como Elsevier, Wiley o Springer Nature) está sufriendo un proceso de “junkificación” (degradación masiva hacia contenido de baja calidad), igual que ha pasado en plataformas digitales como Amazon, Google o redes sociales. Los autores lo llaman “junkification” porque, poco a poco, se prioriza la cantidad y el dinero por encima de la calidad y el valor real del conocimiento.
Explican que esto ocurre en cinco etapas:
-La investigación se convierte en mercancía: se valora más por dónde se publica (revistas top, factor de impacto) que por su aporte real.
-Explosión de revistas de pago: el acceso abierto se pervierte; los autores pagan miles de euros por publicar (hasta 17.000 € en Nature), y surgen miles de revistas depredadoras que aceptan casi todo por dinero.
-Baja la calidad: la revisión por pares se vuelve más débil, aparecen números especiales fraudulentos y se publica mucho trabajo mediocre o dudoso.
-Sobrecarga: hay tantos artículos (casi 3 millones al año) que es imposible distinguir lo bueno del ruido.
-Junkificación total: el sistema pierde su propósito (avanzar el conocimiento para todos) y se transforma en una máquina de hacer dinero para las editoriales, mientras autores y universidades pagan caro y la ciencia se diluye.
La conclusión es que la cultura del “publica o perece”, los rankings obsesivos y el modelo de negocio de las grandes editoriales están destruyendo la calidad de la investigación. Los autores piden recuperar la publicación académica como bien público: más revistas sin ánimo de lucro, repositorios gratuitos, evaluación más amplia (no solo citas) y menos dependencia de las multinacionales. Si no cambiamos, seguiremos recibiendo y produciendo cada vez más “basura científica” disfrazada de progreso.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.…
K van M retweeted
This view resonates deeply with me:
⬛ Publish fewer claims and more proof
Papers need to include fewer claims and more proof to make the scientific literature more reliable
What is driving today’s ‘claims inflation’?
One factor is the emphasis that funding agencies place on impact and translation. Another is that technological advances have made it easier to generate data, which can be accommodated in online supplements. Both factors encourage reviewers and editors to demand extra experiments that are derivative, tangential to the main conclusion or aimed at increasing impact. And it has always taken more courage to accept a paper than to reject it with suggestions for more experiments. That can create perverse incentives by linking acceptance to a preordained result.
K van M retweeted
.
Citation Manipulation
A peer review report just lists the reviewers's papers, saying they should be cited. Author says no, so reviewer doubles down.
Looking at the graphic
1. One of the reviews for an article simply lists six of their own papers, saying that they should be cited.
There are no other comments on the paper, simply a list of their own papers that should be cited. That is, no review was done (in my opinion), this is simply getting their own papers cited (in my opinion).
URL: buff.ly/i5mefsc (archived at buff.ly/bhheb6Z)
2. The author responds saying that they have cited one of the papers but the others do not share any direct relevence with their work, so have decided not to cite them.
URL: buff.ly/zQ5mhWz (archived at buff.ly/QOQDQUw)
3. The reviewer doubles down and simply lists the other five papers again, saying they should be cited, Again, no other comments which would constitute a review.
URL: buff.ly/XTNLeFt (archived at buff.ly/2YLMZuD)
4. The authors concede and cite all the papers.
URL: buff.ly/YFjI5hc (archived at buff.ly/MQvqMbE)
Comments
⭕ We use the term 'citation manipulation' a lot, but this is just blatant. There is is no review, just a list of their own papers to cite.
⭕ I don't b;ame the authors for giving in and citing the other papers because there is always a worry that the reviewer will recommend reject and the editor will accept that.
⭕ Surely, the editor should have stepped in and accepted the paper after the authors had cited one of the papers. Instead, the reviewer was allowed to bully (blackmail - call it what you will) the authors.
⭕ Perhaps the authors should have raised this with the editor, and perhaps they did but no action was taken.
⭕ This reminds me of a recnt case where the authors wrote in the paper that they are only citing these papers as the reviewer had insisted on it, although the papers had no relevance to their work. The paper was subsequently retracted.
⭕️ We should note that the paper only received one actual review (very positive) but the paper was published on the opinion of one person. Again, not the authors' fault but the editorial robustness must be called into question.
⭕ It makes you wonder how many other reviews this reviewer has written like this. Of course, we don't know as most (the vast majority) reviews are not publicly available.
⭕ We should give credit to @SpringerNature for making peer review reports avaiable which, I think, they have only started doing recently.
⭕️ I wonder if the reviewer knew if the reviews would be made public. I suspect not.
Source of information
We were alerted to this via a private message, and we will protect their privacy.
Other links
⭕️ Article URL: buff.ly/B3qf8R1 (archived at buff.ly/sMqvz0C)
⭕️Peer Review URL: buff.ly/5wYrfcO (archived at buff.ly/K4xpcmx)
K van M retweeted
“Your full paper, we can publish by August 15. If you complete the payment [of Rs.23,000] today [Aug 6], formatting will be completed tomorrow & sent for publication,” the Chennai-based ARDA person said on WhatsApp
ARDA was cited in the Aug 4 PNAS paper
sciencechronicle.in/2025/08/…
K van M retweeted
Though not a research publication, it is cool to have a letter to the editor in the forthcoming issue of Nature, a journal with a crazy impact factor.
nature.com/articles/d41586-0…
K van M retweeted
In @ElsevierConnect: “As strongly requested by the reviewers, here we cite some references [[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]] although … completely irrelevant to the present work” pubpeer.com/publications/192… CC @maoviedogarcia @GillesHub
K van M retweeted
Faced with growing worries about academic freedom in the European Union, the European Parliament launched an Academic Freedom Forum in 2022. The studies undertaken for the forum show that academic freedom is eroding in practically all EU member states. universityworldnews.com/post…
K van M retweeted
The Incorrigible Elsevier forbetterscience.com/2024/10… via @schneiderleonid
K van M retweeted
🎯🎯
And not going to happen.
"Rather than focusing on securing #research funds and impact points, #universities and clinics must invest much more in oversight and safeguards that can detect #misconduct at an early stage"
retractionwatch.com/2024/10/… v @RetractionWatch
K van M retweeted
.@webofscience has suspended @eLife from its listings because its novel publishing model - public peer review but no final decision whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected—conflicts with WOS' standards for assuring quality
science.org/content/article/…
K van M retweeted
🗣️ Talking to the public? #ResearchIntegrity still applies
LERU's new paper underlines the need to communicate with integrity and suggests support that universities can give academics.
Read the paper and the interview with the main author Dr Rhys Morgan @Cambridge_Uni. 👇
K van M retweeted
Notre dernier article dans @FR_Conversation avec @olivier_pourret
"En adoptant des systèmes d’évaluation qui privilégient l’accès libre aux données et la reproductibilité des analyses, nous pouvons garantir que les évaluations soient basées sur des preuves complètes et transparentes."
theconversation.com/vers-une…
K van M retweeted
“There needs to be more visibility on journals and publishers that cut corners and fail to do appropriate due diligence on the papers that they publish and monetize,”
nature.com/articles/d41586-0…
@RetractionWatch @WCRIFoundation @MicrobiomDigest @NRIN_Integrity
K van M retweeted
"13 ways in which research reporting is less transparent than it could be" link.springer.com/article/10…
K van M retweeted
MicroRNAs – the focus of today's #NobelPrize – are just one of several flavours of RNA now being harnessed in therapies, as a former Nobel winner, Thomas Cech, explains in his book The Catalyst go.nature.com/40cMhMf
K van M retweeted
How to win the Nobel Prize? @nature has looked into the data on the 346 prizes & their 646 winners (Nobel prizes can be shared by up to three people) to work out which characteristics can be reliably linked to medals
nature.com/immersive/d41586-…
K van M retweeted
"I was under the impression nobody committed #research #misconduct. And then you go through this situation, and you start to wonder if everybody does."
thetransmitter.org/science-a… 🙏@callimcflurry @_TheTransmitter
#AcademicTwitter
K van M retweeted
Covid-19 : le professeur Didier Raoult interdit d’exercer la médecine pendant deux ans
l.francetvinfo.fr/f5V
