@ingorohlfing@mastodon.social cover
@ingorohlfing@mastodon.social avatar

ingorohlfing

@[email protected]

I am here for all interesting and funny posts on the social sciences, broadly understood, academia, teaching, research and science

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

ingorohlfing , to sociology group
@ingorohlfing@mastodon.social avatar

A Snapshot of Inter-Methodology Mixing: The Intersection, Integration and Merging of Methodologies
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15586898241255221
I am all for systemizing methods and approaches, but I wonder then and again whether the field of is overdoing it with its labels and concepts 1/ @sociology @politicalscience

ingorohlfing , to AcademicChatter group
@ingorohlfing@mastodon.social avatar

SPPS has issued an "expression of concern" about an article from 2015 because first author had two articles retracted and the PhD degree revoked bc of data fabrication. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19485506241261712 As I see it, there is no direct evidence yet for data fabrication for the article under scrutiny.
Honest question: Is it justified to post an expression of concern? I see the that the odds of data fabrication are increasing for every other article by the author that is retracted. 1/
@academicchatter

nicebread ,
@nicebread@scicomm.xyz avatar

@ingorohlfing @academicchatter Is fraud/p-hacking more trait-like or more state-like?

I think it makes sense to alert readers to the heightened probability of fraud, so this „expression of concern“ (not a verdict yet) makes sense to me. Maybe they just should keep it as a warning sign. But the process seems to require a decision that either leads to a correction/retraction or a removal of the expression of concern.

ingorohlfing , to AcademicChatter group
@ingorohlfing@mastodon.social avatar

There must be an easier way to work with review/submission websites.
One registers a master password with the publisher that works for all journals. Every time an account is created with a new journal of this publisher, the master password is linked to it and one could start right away @academicchatter

jtmuehlberg ,
@jtmuehlberg@mastodon.online avatar

@ingorohlfing @pkraus @academicchatter I haven't seen ORCID being used for authentication with conference/journal submission systems. But they do so for some services such as Overleaf.

mario_angst_sci ,
@mario_angst_sci@fediscience.org avatar

@jtmuehlberg @ingorohlfing @pkraus @academicchatter I have used it for some, just yesterday for a review submitted through editorialmanager.com (whoever runs that service (?), it was for a Bristol University Press journal). Works fine, and a good use case for ORCID I agree.

ingorohlfing , to AcademicChatter group
@ingorohlfing@mastodon.social avatar

Elsevier unveils Scopus for research reviews | Times Higher Education (THE)
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elsevier-launches-scopus-ai-bot-literature-reviews I couldn't find information about pricing, but it seems safe to assume it is not for free. Meaning institutions have to pay for a tool that likely has been 1/ @academicchatter

sposadelvento ,
@sposadelvento@mastodon.uno avatar

@mcp @ingorohlfing @academicchatter
I wonder if the research done by community should be available to be parsed by an AI.
Maybe it would be better just open for humans.

mcp ,
@mcp@poliversity.it avatar

@sposadelvento @ingorohlfing @academicchatter The problem is that AI is a function of concentrated technological capacities and capabilities (https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/report-ai-in-the-public-interest-confronting-the-monopoly-threat), and even if the data and texts as data were public, as it should be, the monopolies (unless broken) would still have the upper hand in computational power.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •