▲ | jjk166 7 days ago | |||||||
> the biggest factor when the editor-in-charge of a publication is biased The editor-in-charge, and indeed every human being, is always biased. There will always be articles that don't make the cut and there is always going to be some criterion by which a decision is made. Some biases are more disruptive than others. Publicly acknowledged biases can be easily accounted for. You don't want an unbiased editor-in-charge, they're really just a person whose biases you don't recognize. | ||||||||
▲ | sangnoir 7 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> The editor-in-charge, and indeed every human being, is always biased > You don't want an unbiased editor-in-charge, they're really just a person whose biases you don't recognize. These 2 truths are hard for some to digest, and they also diffuse the next step they want to implement: thumbing the scales to "Fix the political bias in science" by installing 'neutral' (to them) individuals to swing science rightwards. Of course, it's not really about the science itself, it's about using science as a new front in the culture wars. | ||||||||
|