Read on Twitter
Some thoughts, as this has caused me to introspect on my own process-
1) "Both editors judged that the manuscript warranted extended review."
Put everything else aside. Its a correlation and a moderator and wild causal speculation. How did this make it to review? https://twitter.com/dstephenlindsay/status/1275459715992915973
1) "Both editors judged that the manuscript warranted extended review."
Put everything else aside. Its a correlation and a moderator and wild causal speculation. How did this make it to review? https://twitter.com/dstephenlindsay/status/1275459715992915973
Lindsay insists it wasn't Baumeister name-recognition. That's still hard to believe, but the alternative is that the desk-decision goes like this- "1) Is this a cool claim? 2) Does the causal story sound plausible? 3) Leave details to reviewers". Or incompetence.
"Judging from their CVs, all four reviewers are eminently qualified to assess this research."
This is perhaps the most damning for peer-review as a concept. Reminds me of work on how you need a much bigger number of reviewers (e.g. 12) that may not be feasible.
This is perhaps the most damning for peer-review as a concept. Reminds me of work on how you need a much bigger number of reviewers (e.g. 12) that may not be feasible.
"It would be extraordinary for an editor to reject a manuscript with such positive reviews."
This is the most damning for the editorial process. Editors cannot be interpreters who average/synthesize reviews. They must make the call, w/reviews informing their decision.
This is the most damning for the editorial process. Editors cannot be interpreters who average/synthesize reviews. They must make the call, w/reviews informing their decision.
"In terms of science, Clark et al. may not be worse than some other articles published in Psych Science during my editorship."
This is the most damning for psychscience. The methods problems are so myriad and glaringly obvious.
This is the most damning for psychscience. The methods problems are so myriad and glaringly obvious.
Lindsay admits that neither he nor Halberstadt thought about race when they read the paper (I'll note its offensive for the cultural reasons he mentions too!). But still, we need to know if everyone who reviewed the paper was white.
I mention this b/c in looking back at the papers I’ve handled that offended in ways Neither I nor reviewers nor authors anticipated, lack of Editor/reviewer diversity (including myself) really jumps out.
There is another troubling implication here. Authors note there is a literature suggesting religion reduces violence. If they simply showed that the relationship didn’t hold x-nationally, ie null effect, would that have made it through?
I typically push back on open sci arguments that novelty shouldn’t count. But this is a case where novelty incentives may have led to a poorly analyzed racist fishing expedition that nonetheless had a higher chance of publication. Something all editors will have to think about.
