Pamela Paul is weaponizing misunderstandings about peer review in the NY Times.
"The authors argue that science should instead be independent, evidence-based and focused on advancing knowledge. This sounds entirely reasonable. Yet the paper was rejected by several prominent mainstream journals..."
Even if that were an accurate description and there were no other problems with the paper the fact that something is rejected from several top journals is hardly evidence that science is broken.
Follow
@ct_bergstrom I'm afraid to look. Does it claim that it was rejected on the grounds that the reviewers rejected the premise?
@ct_bergstrom The Sokal Hoax doesn't need to look over its shoulder at this one.
@pieist It reads sort of like someone asked GPT-2 to write an essay about how science is too woke.