jayrosen_nyu,
@jayrosen_nyu@mastodon.social avatar

This is an outstanding reply to, and analysis of that Pamela Paul column in the New York Times that began this way:

"A paper that says science should be impartial was rejected by major journals. You can’t make this up."

Dave Karpf, an academic, takes it apart. He also testifies as a particiant in the peer review system. Worth your time.

https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/pamela-paul-cancel-culture-grifters?utm_medium=ios

tallship,
@tallship@social.sdf.org avatar

@jayrosen_nyu

Wasn't worth my time at all actually.

It started out like a political hit piece with gross mischaracterizations and innuendo. Not worthy of a socalled "academic".

Thanks for sharing anyway.

jayrosen_nyu,
@jayrosen_nyu@mastodon.social avatar

If I published on Substack somewhere a post with the title, "Guest Essay Arguing that the New York Times Opinion Section is Close Minded Has Been Rejected by — You Guessed it — the New York Times!" the eye rolls in the Times office would be immediate, and if the smirking, eye-rolling editor even gave a thought to it, that first thought would be: "the great majority of essays submitted blind to the Times opinion section are rejected. There's no irony here— and no surprise."

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • science
  • khanakhh
  • DreamBathrooms
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • osvaldo12
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • mdbf
  • kavyap
  • tacticalgear
  • JUstTest
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • ngwrru68w68
  • everett
  • GTA5RPClips
  • ethstaker
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines