this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2025
105 points (99.1% liked)
Slop.
593 readers
449 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As far as I can tell, this isn't even peer reviewed.
it's not, it's on arxiv because they will publish anything. It has upsides and downsides. They only seem to publish on arxiv, I wonder why these papers don't show up anywhere else lol. Also one of them got a 10,000$ (or 40,000, idr) grant from their universities some time back to do this kind of "research"
Western prestige universities are neoliberal ideology factories pumping out dipshits like these and death machine engineers. Their ghoul donors pay billions for them to churn out shit like this
Only because the authors are peerless.
It was presented at a conference in Copenhagen and so was surely peer reviewed.
Peer review is garbage.
Sorry to be pedantic. I don't believe that all conferences are peer reviewed. Gosh, maybe many or most are? Also I thought the peer review for a conference was much more lax. Maybe you know something I don't know?
You're right that peer review is problematic AF. I just find with science articles, it's a good quick rule of thumb is decision on whether something is worth considering deeply.
Sorry that reply was much longer than I expected.
The laxity of peer review depends on the field and which set of nerds the paper or conference organizers could cobble together. In many fields, particularly those heavy on math, conferences are more prestigious than journals most of the time. They all meet up a few times per year to compare notes, basically.
This was presented at a peer reviewed conference. Who knows how careful they were, but the entire subfield of social media analysis is a joke so it doesn't get much better than this. Just more obfuscatory.
PS in science it's also still garbage. So many reviewers put no effort in, have pettu grievances, are jealous of the work and hypercriticize it, or, most commomly, suggest you cite their own papers lest you be "unaware of seminal research on this topic". Passing peer review is not much of a filter, either. P-hacked garbage is rampant.
The real review of peers is when others try to build practically on published work. If it is truly wrong, they will fail and the field will eventually realize this. Most publications are ignored or not used meaningfully by others. They just pad resumes and end up on grant applications.