Talk:OpenPsych pseudojournals

Peer review / pseudojournal
Article states:
 * Formal peer-review involves independent referees providing detailed critiques of article submissions, usually taking between two and four weeks to fully scrutinize; sometimes longer. In contrast, referees for OpenPsych journals review submissions within days and referees are not independent; instead, they communicate with each other on the same message board (OpenPsych). Another concern is referees for OpenPsych are not impartial: they are strongly biased towards hereditarianismWikipedia's W.svg and racialism.

There are thus a few claims: 1) length of reviews, 2) independence of reviews, 3) impartiality. The first point is incorrect, but since no support is given anyway, it seems fine to just delete it. Currently, no official statistics are automatically calculated on the review times, but the mean time will be a few months, rather slowly as of lately because I'm been busy. The second point does not work since this is not a standard criterion for pseudojournals, and arguably this approach is better because it wastes less time. Note that other mainstream journals also use this approach, e.g. see http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04988.html. The third is a concern, but not better than any other speciality topic where most people agree with one view. Try asking about the views about race realism or affirmative action in mainstream anthropology journals or social psychology. These usually have 20 to 1 or more ratios of left-wingers to right-wingers. See https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/. Furthermore, in this case, surveys show that hereditarianism _is_ a mainstream view among relevant experts. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804158/ Thus, there is not even any particular strong skew for this journal. Re. the claim that reviewers at OP are mostly hereditarians. This is probably so, though no survey exists on the matter. Views on race are not used in the reviewer recruitment process. So, of the three given justifications, one is wrong, second has little relevance, third is relevant but these journals are not anything special in this regard. Furthermore, there is no outside citation of a reliable source for the claim that these are pseudojournals. The evidence to the contrary is quite strong given that the editorial team consists of a number of well known experts in the field, who also review and are members of the editorial board for more mainstream journals -- Rindermann, Meisenberg are both members of Intelligence journal's editorial board. See https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence/editorial-board McDaniel, who is an associate editor for Intelligence, has published a paper in OP. https://openpsych.net/person/31 --EmilOWK (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. The OpenPysch forum says the journals aim for "super fast" peer-review, but I've removed "days".
 * 2. A former referee for your pseudo-journals left OpenPsych after complaining after the bias and issues about anonymity of referees; interestingly, he also posted a rant on his personal blog calling Emil Kirkegaard (you) dishonest. His concern about everyone who referees for your pseudo-journals being racialists/hereditarians is now also on the article.
 * 3. In other words your complaints are garbage.Gelzer (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words,, your arguments are even more fraud and this article, along Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, Davide Piffer and Mankind Quarterly are nothing but intentional slander and defamation of these scientists and intelligence research in general. Read Nature's Intelligence research should not be held back by its past (2017) if you have anything against intelligence research and hereditarianism. The article should be deleted or changed title, otherwise it breaks RationalWiki policy.--89.172.140.63 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Criticising racialist/hereditarianism pseudo-science isn't "defamation". Also, those people you listed aren't even scientists; Kirkegaard only has a bachelor's degree in linguistics, he's not a scientist but a pseudointellectual. Everything on the article is accurare and on mission.ANTIFAGuy (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Invalid argument and straw man. If hereditarianism is a pseudo-scientific idea, yet scientists who propose genetic influence do not ignore and neglect social environmental influence, then it is obvious you do not know anything about science, and probably did not even learn and pay attention about basic genetics in an elementary school class. It is not accurate, and on the of mission who, some Antifascist Action? Pathethic.--RationalP (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Straw man yourself... Virtually no scientist says variation in IQ when looking at group/population differences is 100% environmental; the consensus is its mostly (but not entirely) environmental. Someone for example like the anthropologist C. Loring Brace when analysing populations argues the variation in IQ is 80-90% environmental, while 10-20% genetic. This doesn't make him a "hereditarian"; Brace is an anti-racialist (he denies the existence of human races) and has criticized the hereditarianism of Arthur Jensen, J. P. Rushton etc. A "hereditarian" would be arguing for something like 50: 50: or 75: 25 genes/environment.Zeros (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus, in Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests (2016) the genetic-evolutionary factor was the single most important cause of international differences in cognitive ability; in Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings (2015) it correlate genetically about 0.60 or higher; in Socioeconomic status and genetic influences on cognitive development (2017) the largest study to date "found no evidence of SES moderation of genetic influence on test scores, suggesting that articulating gene-environment interactions for cognition is more complex and elusive than previously supposed"; in Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence (2017) is the most up to date list of loci and genes directly related to cognitive ability. Please, spare us of your ideologization of scientific research.--RationalP (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice confirmation bias. The 2013 "Survey of Expert Opinion" (not 2016) Rindermann survey actually gives a percentage for expert opinion on the question "What are the sources of U.S. black-white differences in IQ?" that the survey you posted doesn't even ask, nor phrases anything similar to this. You choose not to quote this because it shows the majority of experts don't support hereditarianism. Firstly, 3 times more experts argue for approximately 0% genes than approximately 100% genes:
 * * 0% of differences due to genes: 17% of experts
 * * 100% of differences due to genes: 5% of experts


 * The same survey also found the majority of experts argue for between (approx.) 0% and 40% genes (like C. Loring Brace):


 * * 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of experts


 * So the consensus like I said... "mostly (but not entirely) environmental". And it is significant nearly 1/5 of experts argue for (approx.) 100% environmental factors. The "hereditarianism" view is certainly the minority one. Please, spare us of your ideologization of scientific research to manipulate this to "no consensus".Zeros (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * What you said is practically speaking, *look one journal article partly said that global warming is fake and hence all other and up-to date articles are wrong", intentionally made a straw man cherry picking information from one graph, intentionally making false claims what hereditarianism mean, and you're accusing others for "cherry picking", speaking of "confirmation bias"? You do not belong on RationalWiki as there's nothing rational in your way of thinking.--RationalP (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki! It's pretty funny how you try to use the name of every common logical fallacy when nothing of the sort is going on here, too. L̤̈ÿ̤n̤̈n̤̈R̤̈ (̈ẗ̤ä̤l̤̈k̤̈)̈ (̈c̤̈ö̤n̤̈ẗ̤r̤̈ï̤b̤̈s̤̈)̈ @ 03:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude, he's a pseudo-intellectual; he spams logical fallacies he doesn't even understand as if he's just Googled them. What I posted was the most recent survey of expert opinion that specifically asks about heritability and population/group differences - most experts of course don't support (Ir)RationalP's pseudo-science so he doesn't choose to quote this survey, but cherry-picks others that don't even ask about population/group differences. Zeros (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

New paper "responding" to criticism
This paper by a bunch of OpenPsych journal editors was recently published in ODP, making it the first paper to be published in any of the OpenPsych journals in almost a year. It aims to "respond" to criticisms of the OpenPsych  journals including those listed on this page (which it actually cites as a source). Jinx (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks. I'm the individual who wrote most the criticisms. They rebut absolutely nothing and its a total BS response. The main issue they don't even address i.e. all referees/peers for their journals are proponents of hereditarianism and biased towards that view. As noted on the pseudojournal article: "In real science, the peers look to pick holes in a paper's methodology or substance for the purpose of improving the field. In pseudojournals, the peers exist to reinforce the advocacy of the pseudoscience in question." In fact a former referee named Meng Hu left the OpenPsych pseudojournals after noting the lack of impartiality of referees and that they're all hereditarian racialists.Punisher (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Meng Hu's criticism, who had sense to leave OpenPsych after realising all its referees are biased and share the same ideology:

Punisher (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Babbling nonsense
The OpenPsych journal's use peer review. This article is a smear piece written by an insane far leftist person who is a self-admitted schizophrenic.

https://openpsych.net/about/ OpenPsych (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Will you stop blocking me without even responding on point? I am raising genuine concerns. You appallingly slander actual scientists like Emil Kirkegaard and yet promote Marxist pseudo-scientific racial denial quacks like Adam Rutherford. Shameful. OpenPsych Admin (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So, a geneticist PhD who was the AV editor of one of the top science journals in the world... is a Marxist pseudo-scientific quack. Into the troll bin you go. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)