Talk:OpenPsych pseudojournals
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
|
This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Peer review / pseudojournal[edit]
|
|---|
|
Article states:
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)
|
New paper "responding" to criticism[edit]
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:
One problem with OP is that most (if not all) reviewers have an "hereditarian side". I would like to see reviewers hostile to the genetic theory. Otherwise, people may think OP looks like a Mankind Quarterly bis. I have nothing against MQ, if there is no conflict of interest or something of this sort, but it's clear most people won't see it like this. What's more, concerning John Fuerst, Dalliard or myself, it's worse, see we co-blog on Human Varieties, and either one of us reviewing the other... that looks weird. Obviously, you'll say that because the reviews are open, everyone can see what is happening. If an hereditarian like me does not accept a publication from another hereditarian, no one will accuse me of anything. But each time I accept, they will suspect something from me, no matter how thorough and how deep my argumentations and justifications are.
Punisher (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Babbling nonsense[edit]
|
|
|---|
|
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)
|