Scientific journals must be alert to potential manipulation in citations and referencing doi.org/10.1177%2F1747… Good summary of evidence on citation manipulation by authors, reviewers and editors that also identifies major challenges.
- Reviewers and editors should check 1/ whether citations are appropriate or evidence for potential overcitation of own work. Challenge is that this is a lot of work requiring much expertise and that there is a gray zone. For raising bar a little bit and rising sensitivity to citation practices, I like the 2/

Late thoughts on "The data revolution in social science needs qualitative research" by @NGrigoropoulou & @MarioLuisSmall in @NatureHumBehav nature.com/articles/s4156… This is an excellent article that systemizes the way in which qualitative research should complement big data/CSS 1/ and gives example of work that has done this already (I understand big data/computational soc sci to be the focus here). From the perspective of political science, this complements calls for combining qualitative and quantitative research 2/

Four reasons slow scholarship will not change academia blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocial… @LSEImpactBlog from May 2021
Slow Science idea hasn't really been picked in academia, as far as I can tell. The post presents some good thoughts why the "slowness-idea" is problematic in general. 1/ I agree that slowness is not a value in itself. Sometimes, developments and events like a pandemic demand it to do research faster than one would do it otherwise. However, research about Covid-19 also showed that the research process can be too fast thehill.com/opinion/health… 2/

Lots of arguments in👇I disagree with or are questionable. To start with a point of agreement: Yes, current modes for getting competitive research grants are not ideal. But I am fairly skeptical the proposed alternative is superior 1/

https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/1502002350923341827

Let's leave aside that 'impact' seems to be equated with publishing and citations: Getting paid for publications would, in the current system, most likely not improve research and funding allocation. I think it wouldn't be different than it is right now where researchers 2/

Zu den Punkten in 👇Tweet:

https://twitter.com/anja_steinbeck/status/1406180993992638466

1) #IchBinHanna zeigt schon sehr eindrücklich, was Wissenschaflter:innen tun können.
2) Die Feststellung, dass nicht für alle Platz ist wird kaum jemand bestreiten. Ich denke, man kann einen anderen Eindruck bekommen, aber 1/ der rührt genau aus den Strukturen, die es zu verändern gilt. Aktuell haben sehr viele Wissenschaftler:innen in der Nachpromotionsphase eine Stelle. Sehr viele von diesen Wissenschaftler:innen erwerben ein Profil, das 2/

There is a highly instructive symposium on "Veil of Ignorance" #ProcessTracing in the new @APSAtweets QMMR publication qmmrpublication.com/uploads/1/1/4/… There is lots to say ab it. For now, I want to focus on whether (causal) qualitative research has a problem w/ confirmation bias that 1/ needs to be addressed.
In short, Veil of Ignorance process tracing aims to blindfold the data collectors and analysts to the hypotheses to reduce risk of confirmation bias.
Proposal receives a lot of criticism by all respondents, partly for valid reasons, partly not, IMO 2/