Daniel LakensIn the next few days we will get to see if there is a difference between Mastodon and Twitter. On Twitter, people are already calling for the editor of Perspectives on Psychological Science to be replaced because of this: https://psyarxiv.com/xk4yu. Let's see if we get the same dog-piling and outrage here, or if this platform works differently.
SLLancaster@lakens How dare people be outraged by outrageous behavior!?
@SLLancaster Have you ever read 'So you've been publicly shamed' by Jon Ronson? https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1594634017 I can recommend it. You will never look with anything but disgust at an online outrage mob.
Liadh Timmins@lakens @SLLancaster what do you propose we do instead in order to solve the problem that had been identified at POPS then?
@liadh @SLLancaster Well, there is always the option to have a normal conversation instead. How do you resolve problems in your offline life? Maybe we can use those solutions online as well?
@lakens @SLLancaster I mean outcome wise. You consider replacing the editor to be a bad solution. What is a good solution to improve the editor’s competence in his role?
@liadh @SLLancaster transparency, and limiting what they can do. The editor tried to freewheel creating some discussion by inviting reviewers to submit a paper. This of course happens - I published a paper in psych methods last year that was a critical review, where the editor decided to publish the original and my review. Here, the weird thing is he got a bunch of agreeing people to write comments. Even though these comments are indeed interesting to read, the procedure was weird.
@liadh @SLLancaster Ajour al should have a better procedure - if you want A discussion, make it public, invite others, make the rules transparent. I am willing to bet that is also what the result of the APS committee will be that is investigating this.
@lakens @SLLancaster long-term I agree that might actually be more impactful. Racist and questionable behaviour would be lower across editors. But those fixes can only go so far. An editor has immense power and their judgement is paramount. As well, the confidence of the field is shook. Even if we could improve the editor’s abilities, I think lots of authors, particularly from marginalised backgrounds, will avoid PoPS until his tenure ends.