"the theory that conservatives and liberals respond differently to threats isn’t actually true."

Nolen · Jun 23, 2019

I'm attempting to be a good D&D citizen by posting something I find uncomfortable because it goes against my own liberal bias.

We Tried to Publish a Replication of a Science Paper in Science. The Journal Refused.
https://slate.com/technology/2019/0...nservatives-liberals-reacting-to-threats.html

Many in here will be familiar with a study that was published in Science some years ago that found that self-identified conservatives have stronger reactions of fear and disgust to threatening images than liberals do. It was the beginning of a lot of theorizing that ideological differences could be hard-wired.

This fit nicely into my own bias against conservatives and (to me) helped explain the incessant use of fear mongering in conservative media, and conservatives' fear of and anger towards those who are different from themselves.

But, another group sought to replicate the original study with even more participants, and couldn't find any correlation to ideology. They even contacted the original researchers to use the same images in the original study- still no correlation.

Although Science (the worlds most prestigious science journal) published the original research, it refused to publish the paper that refuted the original findings.

We did not expect Science to immediately publish the paper, but because our findings cast doubt on an influential study published in its pages, we thought the editorial team would at least send it out for peer review.

It did not. About a week later, we received a summary rejection with the explanation that the Science advisory board of academics and editorial team felt that since the publication of this article the field has moved on and that, while they concluded that we had offered a conclusive replication of the original study, it would be better suited for a less visible subfield journal.

We wrote back asking them to consider at least sending our work out for review. (They could still reject it if the reviewers found fatal flaws in our replications.) We argued that the original article continues to be highly influential and is often featured in popular science pieces in the lay media (for instance, here, here, here, and here), where the research is translated into a claim that physiology allows one to predict liberals and conservatives with a high degree of accuracy. We believe that Science has a responsibility to set the record straight in the same way that a newspaper does when it publishes something that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. We were rebuffed without a reason and with a vague suggestion that the journal’s policy on handling replications might change at some point in the future.
Click to expand...

I must strongly agree with the authors when they say:

Open and transparent science can only happen when journals are willing to publish results that contradict previous findings. We must resist the human tendency to see a failed replication as an indication that the original research team did something wrong or bad...

Science requires us to have the courage to let our beautiful theories die public deaths at the hands of ugly facts.
Click to expand...

If I were a conservative reader, this would certainly feed into my suspicion that the scientific community has a liberal bias.

In defense of liberal media, however, it is Slate that published this.

B-Bob · Jun 23, 2019

Delete. More to come....

B-Bob · Jun 23, 2019

So, Science mag rejects most papers without review. Lots of good papers, they believe, would fit better elsewhere.

At a basic level, it is absurd for any scientists to think their study belongs in a top journal automatically. "Well you included this other study years ago" is not a valid reason, or else each issue of Science would be 1200 pages long.

The authors going to Slate, instead of just quickly submitting their work to another high-quality journal, like the rest of us do, is lame and honestly misleading to the general public.

Let's first examine the 256 (!) other recent published articles referencing the original and then indeed see if *this* new study is as of current import as the authors claim. The whole thing reeks of grandstanding and butthurt, TBH. It's disrespectful to the other 256 papers, which were nearly all in other journals.

Just get your results published elsewhere and try to be your vision of a better editor when you get the chance at a journal.

It's too bad, b/c it sounds like their actual work is interesting if we can get past their behavior.

mdrowe00 · Jun 24, 2019

B-Bob said: ↑

So, Science mag rejects most papers without review. Lots of good papers, they believe, would fit better elsewhere.

At a basic level, it is absurd for any scientists to think their study belongs in a top journal automatically. "Well you included this other study years ago" is not a valid reason, or else each issue of Science would be 1200 pages long.

The authors going to Slate, instead of just quickly submitting their work to another high-quality journal, like the rest of us do, is lame and honestly misleading to the general public.

Let's first examine the 256 (!) other recent published articles referencing the original and then indeed see if *this* new study is as of current import as the authors claim. The whole thing reeks of grandstanding and butthurt, TBH. It's disrespectful to the other 256 papers, which were nearly all in other journals.

Just get your results published elsewhere and try to be your vision of a better editor when you get the chance at a journal.

It's too bad, b/c it sounds like their actual work is interesting if we can get past their behavior.
Click to expand...

...I believe, unfortunately, that the behavior precedes and subsequently informs the work.

I think in most things, what people are looking for is what they will most likely find...so if you're not honest with yourself inwardly (like the OP states in his original post), chances are you're probably not going to be honest with anybody else outwardly...

Conversation, broadly (and in this instance, peer-reviewed assessments of scientific studies and reviews) should have as its ultimate goal not an establishment of opposites...and the "right" or "ability" or "legitimacy" of those opposites...but a confirmation of certainties...

JuanValdez · Jun 24, 2019

B-Bob said: ↑

So, Science mag rejects most papers without review. Lots of good papers, they believe, would fit better elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I had a similar reaction to B-Bob, but he probably said it better. The work should be published, but it doesn't have to be in Science to count. If it is published somewhere and can be referenced by future researchers, the scientific method prevails and all is right with the world.

But, good job complaining through Slate, I suppose, so people might not so confidently misapply the learnings from the original study.

Forums

"the theory that conservatives and liberals respond differently to threats isn’t actually true."

Nolen Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
Supporting Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
Supporting Member

mdrowe00 Member

JuanValdez Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

"the theory that conservatives and liberals respond differently to threats isn’t actually true."

Nolen Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer" Supporting Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer" Supporting Member

mdrowe00 Member

JuanValdez Member

Share This Page

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
Supporting Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
Supporting Member