That's qual for ya. That reality only existed when it was made up.
Official Marketing JM 2020 Thread
-
Was that the supervisor of one of the editors' elect, former colleague of one of the editors elect, current co-author of one of the editors elect, good friend of one of the editors elect? One of the couple, one of the Columbia faculty?
I mean the losing team was no better (or worse) but the optics are really not good with this one.
My colleague down the hall was on the Policy Board. I showed them this post, and here was the direct reply: "What a total load of horse****".
There were some facts and figures to back this up, but I don't suppose those would change your mind.This team is the poster child of academic nepotism. And they are proud of it.
-
Superbly said.
Was that the supervisor of one of the editors' elect, former colleague of one of the editors elect, current co-author of one of the editors elect, good friend of one of the editors elect? One of the couple, one of the Columbia faculty?
I mean the losing team was no better (or worse) but the optics are really not good with this one.My colleague down the hall was on the Policy Board. I showed them this post, and here was the direct reply: "What a total load of horse****".
There were some facts and figures to back this up, but I don't suppose those would change your mind.This team is the poster child of academic nepotism. And they are proud of it.
-
and the other who is widely regarded as the D. Stapel of qualitative work.
Yet the person still has an academic job.
Not as easy to prove fraud in qual as it is in experimental work.
Is there evidence for these allegations? If not, better keep mouth shut...
Once again, you are on a rumor site, not a peer reviewed scientifically proven facts site. If you don’t want to see rumors, better not look at this site.
-
and the other who is widely regarded as the D. Stapel of qualitative work.
Yet the person still has an academic job.
Not as easy to prove fraud in qual as it is in experimental work.
Is there evidence for these allegations? If not, better keep mouth shut...
This kind of allegations doesn't start in a vacuum.
-
Yes, one of those. Ain’t saying which.
Not seeing a prob with the couple, either. Are they biased too?
Was that the supervisor of one of the editors' elect, former colleague of one of the editors elect, current co-author of one of the editors elect, good friend of one of the editors elect? One of the couple, one of the Columbia faculty?
I mean the losing team was no better (or worse) but the optics are really not good with this one.My colleague down the hall was on the Policy Board. I showed them this post, and here was the direct reply: "What a total load of horse****".
There were some facts and figures to back this up, but I don't suppose those would change your mind.This team is the poster child of academic nepotism. And they are proud of it.
-
and the other who is widely regarded as the D. Stapel of qualitative work.
Yet the person still has an academic job.
Not as easy to prove fraud in qual as it is in experimental work.
Is there evidence for these allegations? If not, better keep mouth shut...
I would think a qual person should understand the term "rumor".
-
No, just loony.
Yes, one of those. Ain’t saying which.
Not seeing a prob with the couple, either. Are they biased too?Was that the supervisor of one of the editors' elect, former colleague of one of the editors elect, current co-author of one of the editors elect, good friend of one of the editors elect? One of the couple, one of the Columbia faculty?
I mean the losing team was no better (or worse) but the optics are really not good with this one.My colleague down the hall was on the Policy Board. I showed them this post, and here was the direct reply: "What a total load of horse****".
There were some facts and figures to back this up, but I don't suppose those would change your mind.This team is the poster child of academic nepotism. And they are proud of it.
-
He also processed >600 papers a year and actually read them. Completely devoted years to the job with little payback. Was a HUGE improvement over some of the prior editors.
RM is corrupt to some degree. He published while an editor at JMR and got papers accepted with special favors. His 2019 JMR paper was processed with special favors. Does not surprise me.
-
He also processed >600 papers a year and actually read them. Completely devoted years to the job with little payback. Was a HUGE improvement over some of the prior editors.
RM is corrupt to some degree. He published while an editor at JMR and got papers accepted with special favors. His 2019 JMR paper was processed with special favors. Does not surprise me.
Thanks for the laughter.