David Crotty on Muck Rack

David Crotty

Executive Editor, The scholarly kitchen

What's hot and cooking in Scholarly Publishing. Blog from the Society for Scholarly Publishing, all tweets via our Editor David Crotty.

Search Tweets

Twitter Feed

@scholarlykitchn — 17,210 followers, 11,032 tweets

@cane51000 If you can't accurately characterize your experimental sample, then it becomes difficult to draw any reliable conclusions from it.
@cane51000 Someone commenting on a paper shouldn't have had to do that work. It should have been addressed by the authors.
@cane51000 I suggest this should have been controlled for or acknowledged. You went off on a lengthy tangent about the WoS. My original point still stands. This is a flaw in the paper, ignores the role peer review may have played in rejecting papers.
@cane51000 Original claim of paper: peer review adds no value. Paper only looks at accepted articles, discards any articles that were rejected via peer review. We discuss, and I point out a study showing at least some percentage of the experimental sample was discarded.
@cane51000 So you're okay with throwing out an unknown 0-17% of your experimental sample and doing no controls to justify this? You have different standards of experimental rigor than I do.
Show More