If you feel like getting angry then read this article

If you feel like getting angry then read this article.
quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/

Attached: fine.jpg (600x882, 54K)

Other urls found in this thread:

terrytao.wordpress.com/2018/09/11/on-the-recently-removed-paper-from-the-new-york-journal-of-mathematics/
math.uchicago.edu/~farb/statement
arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

If you feel like simmering down because you get triggered too easily then read this article.
terrytao.wordpress.com/2018/09/11/on-the-recently-removed-paper-from-the-new-york-journal-of-mathematics/

Fuck Jow Forums, ya poof

Stop letting the internet make you mad. Start doing your homework.
math.uchicago.edu/~farb/statement

Idk if you've read the paper (arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf) or not, but to me it seems the allegations against the legitmacy of the paper are overly generalized or just plain unfair. In fact, he even goes into way more detail than necessary when explaining topics like selectivity and Hill makes it clear many times that he is just supporting an already existing theory with properly verified research. The amount of backlash against this makes it sound like he's some crackpot trying to get his flat earth theory published.

There is no "amount of backlash" that didn't start with a fit of hysteria by the writer himself. The only backlash was from idiots like you mindlessly sharing the same story over and over in a fit of outrage without actually getting down to the facts first. He tried getting published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal, his paper was in fact not peer-reviewed, he was declined, end of story.

Attached: 1525662372834.gif (300x169, 1.64M)

lmao nobody cares you stupid mutt go back to fucking your cousin and shooting yourself in the foot lole

The paper was accepted and scheduled for publication twice and both times was axed at the last minute. If they rejected him outright for having a bad paper, fine. But that is not the case. Is there anything concrete in Hill's paper that is so flawed that it should stop it from being published?

Nigger learn to read it's a lack of peer review I just fucking told you. That's how it works. The publishers don't have the time to fact check every paper they get until the cows come home. So it has to come in with a few notes of approval from people recognized inside the respective field. That way they can read the paper, make sure it doesn't contain any outright bullshit, and leave the trust in the references up to the reviewers.

I collaborate in papers and I ain't gonna read that bull.
Who cares.

Attached: 18300838_1724581981172530_8796912037249930728_n.jpg (264x264, 14K)

I guess you didn't need to even read the article to get angry. But for real though, the Math Intelligencer's Viewpoint column should have on no level thrown out this paper. Hill and Tabachnikov were harassed for essentially sharing compiled existing evidence to support their theory. This was not a problem of peer review, since it was being published in the equivalence of an opinion column.

It's a lot easier to argue against the NYJM case, because it is much more prestigious and maybe not an appropriate platform. 2 peers should be fine for an opinion-like piece, but given the scale of what NYJM puts out I would not have expected them to ever accept this paper. It's the fact that both journals were scheduled to publish this article in the first place and were then forced to withdraw their promises that is annoying.
I don't know what steak you have in this fight or if you even read this stuff, but the fact of the matter is that a green-lighted paper was removed from the Intelligencer directly because of its propositions, not validity, was then accepted by a far more prestigious paper because of an angered editor, and then shot down by some even angrier editors. The paper had every reason to be published in the Intelligencer, and a much weaker but still valid case for the NYJM.
There's my little speech. Also, you don't seem like a very agreeable person. Going to go eat lunch now~

Niggers lool

I don't need to read the article in detail that's the whole point. Even tho this is somewhat in my field I am by no means experienced enough to be called a "peer". So even if I dug everything out in detail and in the end said "yeah this paper is solid" it wouldn't make any difference. But go ahead, keep shirking the blatant facts. The fact that you're looking for "agreeable people" already says enough. You just want more people to join your outrage parade. It's ridiculous.

It seems like a sore subject that would have no consequence on whether it was published or not. Given how academia can be in the US (it's trying to make a push for diversity), do you think it would have been better for the author to publish his paper in lesser journals? Then if it was something of actual interest and substance, it would eventually garner more attention/support? I'm not familiar with academic research, so I'm posing these questions to you because I'm curious.
Regardless, I'm not sure what the point of the authors paper would be.
If we said there's more retards and geniuses in men than women, than on average wouldn't we all be of equal intelligence? Why would that be in a mathematical journal? Isn't that more sociology or some shit?

Are you asking that on a theoretical basis? Because the bottom of the paper very explicitly mentions that a difference in intelligence spread between men and women is NOT part of their conclusion (Part 8, page 13).

>theoretical basis
yes My last paragraph was more just me musing.

okay, I've actually read it now. Seems like the only controversial thing was just what you exactly said, which is about the peer review.
idk what the big stink is now.

Well then I guess it wouldn't. There's a reason statistics is one of the few math topics that are a part of almost every academic degree, because it fits many different branches of study. But this particular paper's subject was specifically about the application and validity of a new mathematical method, not about the implications of the underlying dataset. So it fits being in a mathematical journal. But in any case even if this was a sociological study it comes with a LOT of implied asterisks. You can't just "say there are more retards and geniuses among men" from one paper. It requires reproduction and validation through additional tests, from different populations, verified by independent people etc. etc. etc. before you can reasonably make that assumption. That's also why there so often seems to be outrages about these things, because novices make assumptions that are overly broad to the test at hand, and word spreads quickly along the internet without the necessary verification.

>That's also why there so often seems to be outrages about these things, because novices make assumptions that are overly broad to the test at hand, and word spreads quickly along the internet without the necessary verification.
absolutely.