Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust From: Alejandro Osses <ale.a.osses@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 08:09:42 +0200--00000000000038fc2405fd6fded6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000038fc2205fd6fded5" --00000000000038fc2205fd6fded5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, good morning! Although I have enjoyed most of the discussion about preprints vs. peer review, I feel it's clear that no system is perfect and it's good to be aware of it, because in that way we can continue looking for a "continuous improvement". At the same time we should somehow conclude the discussion of this thread ("arXiv web of trust") on positive terms. Yesterday I was reminded by Shihab Shamma during a very productive meeting how easygoing our field is, and I can only agree with that. And it is totally fine that we do not agree on the exact motivation to share (or not) preprints. I want to share the following thoughts, some of them taken from part of the previous replies (I can't remember who pointed out what exactly): - Preprints are a quick way to let the others know what you are doing: sometimes you will like to go through a peer review process or sometimes not (e.g., as in the example by Dick Lyon). - Peer review has existed for a long time, and I think it is good to get your ideas evaluated by a panel of experts. Yes: the system needs improvement. But I think the support by reviewers have in general good (= and socially-driven) intentions. This statement does not mean that sometimes you will get bad experiences either as an author or as a reviewer. There were other concepts that were sometimes coming into the discussion, like indicating that preprints =3D open science. This is not totally correc= t, as preprints are only one form of open science, but there are many other options: publishing your paper as open access (yes: it is often a very expensive fee, needs improvement), preregistration, code sharing (yes, code sharing needs improvement, e.g., in how to review them), etc. I hope that we can continue this discussion further but hopefully in person (in a coming conference?) or in other contexts. And thank you again to everyone who dared to share ideas about these (conceptually-sensitive) aspects. Alejandro --=20 Alejandro Osses, Ph.D. Postdoctoral researcher, Laboratoire des Syst=C3=A8mes Perceptifs, UMR 8248 =C3=89cole Normale Sup=C3=A9rieure, PSL University 29 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France - I have had mostly good experiences although I have had recent band experiences where I can think what it h - Op di 6 jun 2023 om 06:09 schreef McMurray, Bob <bob-mcmurray@xxxxxxxx>: > Hi Colleagues > > > > I=E2=80=99ve been watching from the wings on this discussion as I think o= ur field > is in a real point of flux with respect to scientific publishing and > communication, and I don=E2=80=99t think I know what=E2=80=99s best any m= ore. Its been > fun to watch a very healthy and vigorous conversation unfold amonst my > esteemed colleagues =E2=80=93 both junior and senior =E2=80=93 and I=E2= =80=99ve learned a lot. > > > > However, Matt (and Deniz) made a very powerful point, that I felt the nee= d > to weigh in on. They argue that the very nature of scientific > communication is pervaded by issues power, positionality and > discrimination. I don=E2=80=99t think I realized this till recently (perh= aps I was > an Eagle in that cartoon), but they are right. It=E2=80=99s important. > > > > Les, I respect your point of view. We should be having these open and > objective conversations and we should strive for that. But we also have = to > recognize that this is an aspirational point of view. In my view, the > rhetoric of science is not objective. Its persuasive. A scientific > discovery from my lab is not a fact until I convince the scientific > community to believe it (or at least convince Reviewers 1,2 and 3). The > rules of science =E2=80=93 statistical and methodological norms, peer rev= iew, and > the like -- are really designed to ensure that this persuasion is all > geared to some mutually acceptable norms of objectivity. It often works > and there=E2=80=99s not much better. > > > > But fundamentally this is still a persuasive enterprise (as it should > be). And fundamentally, some people =E2=80=93 by virtue of their station= and > background =E2=80=93 are going to be in a better place to persuade their = colleagues > than others. We commonly associate these issues of discrimination and > positionality with things like race, religion and gender. And indeed the= se > things matter =E2=80=93 just look at the disparities among the medalists = of the ASA > and you can see for yourself. > > > > But a good friend of mine recently showed me how these kind of factors > extend all throughout academia. Are some fields privileged? Are hearing > scientists more likely to discount a finding from a linguist or a social > scientist than someone who is solidly situated in hearing science? What > about a finding from a small clinical population (a =E2=80=9Cniche=E2=80= =9D field) or an > obscure auditory phenomena vs. as opposed to a finding based on the core > =E2=80=9Cmodal=E2=80=9D NH adult in a sound proof booth? Are we more lik= ely to take a > finding seriously if it was generated by one of the top universities (in > our field) than a second tier state university? Or from a new scholar th= at > was trained by one of the best vs. an emerging scholar who came to the > field more independently? What about a person who is changing fields =E2= =80=93 > migrating, for example, from a field like cognitive science to audiology = or > hearing science? What about clinical credentialing? Does that help or > harm our cases? > > > > All of these things have nothing to do with the objective argument that i= s > being made and the quality of the data used to support it. But we all mu= st > admit that they do change how much credence we are likely to give a > discussion or a paper (and each of us may weigh these differently). > Sometimes these are useful heuristics =E2=80=93 if the methods aren=E2=80= =99t clear, but > you know how a person was trained, it may be easier to trust that the > experiments were done right. But sometimes this is just downright > discriminatory, like when we discount contributions from outside what we > perceive as the core field. > > > > But how does this impact scientific publishing? > > > > Matt makes the valuable point that as our field opens up to new viewpoint= s > and new participants, the view from those people may be very different th= an > the view from the people at the top. We should listen. People do struggl= e > to gain entry to this field. I certainly did when I began working in > hearing science, despite my training at a very good cognitive science > program. > > > > Peer review is part of the problem. It can amplify these biases. And > peer review is not designed to =E2=80=9Chelp=E2=80=9D new entries =E2=80= =93 its is designed to help > a journal editor decide what to do with a paper. So it often serves as an > impersonal barrier to entry. OF course, we cannot dispense with it. But > we should be actively exploring other models. if this new generation of > talented, thoughtful, diverse and enterprising young scholars wants to > engage in novel modes of scientific communication, I=E2=80=99m happy to l= isten and > to contribute to these new models. > > > > theBob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 1:55=E2=80=AFPM Les Bernstein <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx= > wrote: > > On 5/31/2023 2:15 PM, Matthew Winn wrote: > > *** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening > attachments or clicking on links. *** > > There are statements in this thread that cannot go unchallenged, because > they condone and perpetuate harmful ideas that need to end. Specifically: > 1) =E2=80=9CIf one is not a sufficiently confident and independent thinke= r such > that one can express ideas, arguments, disagreements, etc. with anyone in > the field, regardless of stature, then that is a weakness=E2=80=9D > This statement ignores the multiple power structures that affect the live= s > and employment of those below the =E2=80=98upper echelon=E2=80=99 in the = field. Expressing > an idea involves risk when your position is precarious. Adapting to and > weighing that risk is a key survival strategy, not a weakness. I have a > blind spot for this risk =E2=80=93 not because I=E2=80=99m so great at sc= ience, but because > my culture gives me unearned respect because of my demographics. For peop= le > like me (and, I will note, virtually everyone on this thread), we live in= a > culture that insulates us from any sense that our voice doesn=E2=80=99t b= elong. > > > I could not disagree more. The suggestion that, within our field, > different cultural backgrounds confer more or less ability to have > productive scientific discussions with anyone, regardless of status is, a= s > I see it, just plain nonsense. Expressing an idea involves risk? Really= , > in our field of auditory science? I can give plenty of counterexamples t= o > such an assertion. > > > > 2) =E2=80=9Cthink about how such researchers earned such status. It was = not > because they had friends, it was not because people liked them. It was > because they established a track-record of contributions that the field, = in > general, held in very high regard.=E2=80=9D > This is a self-serving narrative that reflects survivorship bias and whic= h > ignores everything we know about how people act in real life. Science is > done by humans, who have personal interests, biases, and who live within = a > culture where status is built on many layers of privilege. Every decision > we make is filtered by these factors, which allow some people (like me) t= o > accumulate a variety of advantages at every career stage, simply because = of > how they look, who their friends are, and where they grew up. They are mo= re > likely to have papers accepted, to be selected for podium presentations, = to > have a job application reviewed, to be interviewed, to be hired, to be > selected as editors and reviewers, to be elected to positions of > leadership, and to be given favorable treatment in the workplace. To be > taken seriously. If we pretend that these advantages are ALL due to the > scientific merit of one=E2=80=99s work, we are characterizing scientists = as some > species entirely separate from the rest of humanity. > > Again, theoretical, social drivel. Lloyd Jeffress, Dave Green, Neal > Viemester, Barbara Bohne, and on and on. > > > > 3) =E2=80=9CStature does not count. Everyone should be held to the very s= ame > standard=E2=80=9D > We all agree that work should not be judged on the basis of who wrote it. > But importantly, the influence of stature doesn=E2=80=99t need to be expl= icitly > suggested in order to actually take place. Similar to the last point, the > idea of equal standards and equal treatment is a convenient fiction that > allows people like me to feel superior because I can attribute my success > to my own hard work and merit, even though many factors that led to that > success were unearned. > > Again, your theoretical musing. Not the reality in auditory science that > I have seen. > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D > What does this have to do with preprints? The point is to consider that > others have a different set of constraints, and that our definitions of > merit are tailored to suit those who are already enjoying a wide variety = of > privileges. Consider the forces that lead authors to think that preprints > are useful, and also whether you are facing the same expectations and > constraints that they are. Numerous people have pointed at the apparent > generational divide on this issue - let's figure out why. Graduate > admissions and fellowship review increasingly expect a publication record > that far exceeds anything that would have been expected of the reviewers > when they were at that same career stage. For various reasons, the timeli= ne > of publication is increasingly long. Exacerbating this, it is no longer > enough to simply conduct a good study; one must also curate a data > management and sharing plan that includes open-access data and documented > code. One must learn and conduct the latest statistical techniques that > their advisors never needed to learn, and sift through a much broader set > of literature that includes a lot of garbage. To compete for stable > employment, younger scholars need an internet presence and must learn to > incorporate inclusive language in their writing, even if that were not pa= rt > of their training. They need to express how their work contributes to the > reduction of harm in society, despite being advised by some of the people > who are doing the harm. > > > None of this, much of which I find to be mere unjustified assertion, is a= n > argument for shifting the weight of dissemination of work toward > non-refereed open access. By the way, when was it the case that a solid > knowledge of statistical techniques was unnecessary? Hey, you don't have > to wire together analog equipment to generate your signals! > > > Preprints are not a magical solution that can eliminate the multiple > barriers that I described above. But they have tangible value, and reflec= t > adaptation to a changing academic landscape, rather than reflecting some > loss of =E2=80=9Cstandards=E2=80=9D that are designed to protect those al= ready at the top, > and which were established under an entirely different system of > constraints. > > > Preprints help address the needs for 1) visibility and 2) quicker feedbac= k > on your work from a wider variety of scholars who might not have been > invited to review, simply because they were not in the network of the > associate editor. These factors are often yoked together; the channels th= at > spread awareness of a preprint (like Twitter) might also be the same > channels that generate discussion that becomes useful feedback. The > tendency (or need) to use these dissemination channels probably reinforce= s > the generational divide on this thread. I assure you that the comments I'= ve > received from people enthusiastic enough to read a preprint have had > meaningful influence and value. And those comments can come from a wider > variety of people whose opinions have been historically discounted. > Experienced reviewers will always have a place in our scientific discours= e, > but to discount the benefit and potential of preprints is to be willfully > detached from our current reality. > > > I never said one should not use pre-prints for whatever benefit they can > confer. > > > Matt > > > > -- > > *Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. | *Professor Emeritus > > Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of > Medicine > 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401 > Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495 > > > > > -- > > Matthew Winn, AuD, PhD > > Associate Professor > > Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences > > University of Minnesota > --00000000000038fc2205fd6fded5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Dear all, good morning!</div><div><b= r></div><div>Although I have enjoyed most of the discussion about preprints= vs. peer review, I feel it's clear that no system is perfect and it= 9;s good to be aware of it, because in that way we can continue looking for= a "continuous improvement". At the same time we should somehow c= onclude the discussion of this thread ("arXiv web of trust") on p= ositive terms.</div><div><br></div><div>Yesterday I was reminded by Shihab = Shamma during a very productive meeting how easygoing our field is, and I c= an only agree with that. And it is totally fine that we do not agree on the= exact motivation to share (or not) preprints.</div><div><br></div><div>I w= ant to share the following thoughts, some of them taken from part of the pr= evious replies (I can't remember who pointed out what exactly):<br></di= v><div><ul><li>Preprints are a quick way to let the others know what you ar= e doing: sometimes you will like to go through a peer review process or som= etimes not (e.g., as in the example by Dick Lyon).</li><li>Peer review has = existed for a long time, and I think it is good to get your ideas evaluated= by a panel of experts. Yes: the system needs improvement. But I think the = support by reviewers have in general good (and socially-driven) intentions.= This statement does not mean that sometimes you will get bad experiences e= ither as an author or as a reviewer.<br></li></ul></div><div>There were oth= er concepts that were sometimes coming into the discussion, like indicating= that preprints =3D open science. This is not totally correct, as preprints= are only one form of open science, but there are many other options: publi= shing your paper as open access (yes: it is often a very expensive fee, nee= ds improvement), preregistration, code sharing (yes, code sharing needs imp= rovement, e.g., in how to review them), etc.</div><div><br></div><div>I hop= e that we can continue this discussion further but hopefully in person (in = a coming conference?) or in other contexts.</div><div><br></div><div>And th= ank you again to everyone who dared to share ideas about these (conceptuall= y-sensitive) aspects.</div><div><br></div><div>Alejandro</div><div><pre cla= ss=3D"gmail-moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=20 Alejandro Osses, Ph.D. Postdoctoral researcher, Laboratoire des Syst=C3=A8mes Perceptifs, UMR 8248 =C3=89cole Normale Sup=C3=A9rieure, PSL University 29 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France </pre> </div><div>=C2=A0<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><di= v><ul><li>I have had mostly good experiences although I have had recent ban= d experiences where I can think what it h<br></li><li><br></li></ul></div><= div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir= =3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Op di 6 jun 2023 om 06:09 schreef McMurray, B= ob <<a href=3D"mailto:bob-mcmurray@xxxxxxxx">bob-mcmurray@xxxxxxxx</a>= >:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p= x 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class= =3D"msg-7721600493928519573"> <div style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word;" lang=3D"EN-US"> <div class=3D"m_-7721600493928519573WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hi Colleagues<u></u><u></u></p> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">I=E2=80=99ve been watching from the wings on this di= scussion as I think our field is in a real point of flux with respect to sc= ientific publishing and communication, and I don=E2=80=99t think I know wha= t=E2=80=99s best any more. =C2=A0=C2=A0Its been fun to watch a very healthy and vigorous conversation unfold amonst my esteemed colleagues =E2= =80=93 both junior and senior =E2=80=93 and I=E2=80=99ve learned a lot.<u><= /u><u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">However, Matt (and Deniz) made a very powerful point= , that I felt the need to weigh in on.=C2=A0 They argue that the very natur= e of scientific communication is pervaded by issues power, positionality an= d discrimination. I don=E2=80=99t think I realized this till recently (perhaps I was an Eagle in that cartoon), but they are = right. It=E2=80=99s important.<u></u><u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Les, I respect your point of view.=C2=A0 We should b= e having these open and objective conversations and we should strive for th= at.=C2=A0 But we also have to recognize that this is an aspirational point = of view.=C2=A0 In my view, the rhetoric of science is not objective. Its persuasive.=C2=A0 A scientific discovery from my lab= is not a fact until I convince the scientific community to believe it (or = at least convince Reviewers 1,2 and 3).=C2=A0 The rules of science =E2=80= =93 statistical and methodological norms, peer review, and the like -- are really designed to ensure that this persuasion is all = geared to some mutually acceptable norms of objectivity.=C2=A0 It often wor= ks and there=E2=80=99s not much better. <u></u><u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">But fundamentally this is still a persuasive enterpr= ise (as it should be).=C2=A0 And fundamentally, some people =E2=80=93 by vi= rtue of their station and background =E2=80=93 are going to be in a better = place to persuade their colleagues than others.=C2=A0 We commonly associate these issues of discrimination and positionality with things lik= e race, religion and gender.=C2=A0 And indeed these things matter =E2=80=93= just look at the disparities among the medalists of the ASA and you can se= e for yourself. <u></u><u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">But a good friend of mine recently showed me how the= se kind of factors extend all throughout academia.=C2=A0 Are some fields pr= ivileged?=C2=A0 Are hearing scientists more likely to discount a finding fr= om a linguist or a social scientist than someone who is solidly situated in hearing science?=C2=A0 What about a finding fro= m a small clinical population (a =E2=80=9Cniche=E2=80=9D field) or an obscu= re auditory phenomena vs. as opposed to a finding based on the core =E2=80= =9Cmodal=E2=80=9D NH adult in a sound proof booth?=C2=A0 Are we more likely to take a finding seriously if it was generated by one of the top universi= ties (in our field) than a second tier state university?=C2=A0 Or from a ne= w scholar that was trained by one of the best vs. an emerging scholar who c= ame to the field more independently?=C2=A0 What about a person who is changing fields =E2=80=93 migrating, for exampl= e, from a field like cognitive science to audiology or hearing science?=C2= =A0 What about clinical credentialing?=C2=A0 Does that help or harm our cas= es? <u></u><u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">All of these things have nothing to do with the obje= ctive argument that is being made and the quality of the data used to suppo= rt it.=C2=A0 But we all must admit that they do change how much credence we= are likely to give a discussion or a paper (and each of us may weigh these differently).=C2=A0 Sometimes these are us= eful heuristics =E2=80=93 if the methods aren=E2=80=99t clear, but you know= how a person was trained, it may be easier to trust that the experiments w= ere done right.=C2=A0 But sometimes this is just downright discriminatory, like when we discount contributions from outside what we p= erceive as the core field.<u></u><u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">But how does this impact scientific publishing?<u></= u><u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Matt makes the valuable point that as our field open= s up to new viewpoints and new participants, the view from those people may= be very different than the view from the people at the top.=C2=A0 We shoul= d listen. People do struggle to gain entry to this field.=C2=A0 I certainly did when I began working in hearing scien= ce, despite my training at a very good cognitive science program. <u></u><u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Peer review is part of the problem.=C2=A0 It can amp= lify these biases.=C2=A0 And peer review is not designed to =E2=80=9Chelp= =E2=80=9D new entries =E2=80=93 its is designed to help a journal editor de= cide what to do with a paper. So it often serves as an impersonal barrier to entry.=C2=A0 OF course, we cannot dispense with it.=C2=A0 But we should= be actively exploring other models.=C2=A0 if this new generation of talent= ed, thoughtful, diverse and enterprising young scholars wants to engage in = novel modes of scientific communication, I=E2=80=99m happy to listen and to contribute to these new models.<u></u><u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">theBob<u></u><u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> </div> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 1:55=E2=80=AFPM Les Bernstein= <<a href=3D"mailto:lbernstein@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">lbernstein@xxxxxxxx= hc.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p> </div> <blockquote style=3D"border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rg= b(204,204,204);border-style:none none none solid;border-width:medium medium= medium 1pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">On 5/31/2023 2:15 PM, Matthew Winn wrote:<u></u><u><= /u></p> </div> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-align:center;background:rgb(213,234,25= 5)" align=3D"center"> <span style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:red">*** Attention: This is an external= email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. *= **<u></u><u></u></span></p> </div> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">There are statements in this thread that cannot go u= nchallenged, because they condone and perpetuate harmful ideas that need to= end. Specifically:<br> 1) =E2=80=9CIf one is not a sufficiently confident and independent thinker = such that one can express ideas, arguments, disagreements, etc. with anyone= in the field, regardless of stature, then that is a weakness=E2=80=9D<br> This statement ignores the multiple power structures that affect the lives = and employment of those below the =E2=80=98upper echelon=E2=80=99 in the fi= eld. Expressing an idea involves risk when your position is precarious. Ada= pting to and weighing that risk is a key survival strategy, not a weakness. I have a blind spot for this risk =E2=80=93 not = because I=E2=80=99m so great at science, but because my culture gives me un= earned respect because of my demographics. For people like me (and, I will = note, virtually everyone on this thread), we live in a culture that insulates us from any sense that our voice doesn=E2=80= =99t belong.<u></u><u></u></p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br> <span style=3D"font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"= >I could not disagree more.=C2=A0 The suggestion that, within our field, di= fferent cultural backgrounds confer more or less ability to have productive= scientific discussions with anyone, regardless of status is, as I see it, just plain nonsense.=C2=A0 Expressing an idea i= nvolves risk?=C2=A0 Really, in our field of auditory science?=C2=A0 I can g= ive plenty of counterexamples to such an assertion.</span><span style=3D"fo= nt-size:10pt"><br> <br> </span><u></u><u></u></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br> <br> 2) =E2=80=9Cthink about how such researchers earned such status.=C2=A0 It w= as not because they had friends, it was not because people liked them.=C2= =A0 It was because they established a track-record of contributions that th= e field, in general, held in very high regard.=E2=80=9D<br> This is a self-serving narrative that reflects survivorship bias and which = ignores everything we know about how people act in real life. Science is do= ne by humans, who have personal interests, biases, and who live within a cu= lture where status is built on many layers of privilege. Every decision we make is filtered by these factors, = which allow some people (like me) to accumulate a variety of advantages at = every career stage, simply because of how they look, who their friends are,= and where they grew up. They are more likely to have papers accepted, to be selected for podium presentatio= ns, to have a job application reviewed, to be interviewed, to be hired, to = be selected as editors and reviewers, to be elected to positions of leaders= hip, and to be given favorable treatment in the workplace. To be taken seriously. If we pretend that these advantag= es are ALL due to the scientific merit of one=E2=80=99s work, we are charac= terizing scientists as some species entirely separate from the rest of huma= nity.<u></u><u></u></p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helv= etica",sans-serif">Again, theoretical, social drivel.=C2=A0 Lloyd Jeff= ress, Dave Green, Neal Viemester, Barbara Bohne, and on and on.=C2=A0 </span><span style=3D"font-size:10pt"><br> <br> </span><u></u><u></u></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br> <br> 3) =E2=80=9CStature does not count. Everyone should be held to the very sam= e standard=E2=80=9D<br> We all agree that work should not be judged on the basis of who wrote it. B= ut importantly, the influence of stature doesn=E2=80=99t need to be explici= tly suggested in order to actually take place. Similar to the last point, t= he idea of equal standards and equal treatment is a convenient fiction that allows people like me to feel superior becaus= e I can attribute my success to my own hard work and merit, even though man= y factors that led to that success were unearned.<u></u><u></u></p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helv= etica",sans-serif">Again, your theoretical musing.=C2=A0 Not the reali= ty in auditory science that I have seen.</span><br> <br> <u></u><u></u></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D <br> What does this have to do with preprints? The point is to consider that oth= ers have a different set of constraints, and that our definitions of merit = are tailored to suit those who are already enjoying a wide variety of privi= leges. Consider the forces that lead authors to think that preprints are useful, and also whether you are = facing the same expectations and constraints that they are. Numerous people= have pointed at the apparent generational divide on this issue - let's= figure out why. Graduate admissions and fellowship review increasingly expect a publication record that far ex= ceeds anything that would have been expected of the reviewers when they wer= e at that same career stage. For various reasons, the timeline of publicati= on is increasingly long. Exacerbating this, it is no longer enough to simply conduct a good study; one must also= curate a data management and sharing plan that includes open-access data a= nd documented code. One must learn and conduct the latest statistical techn= iques that their advisors never needed to learn, and sift through a much broader set of literature that in= cludes a lot of garbage. To compete for stable employment, younger scholars= need an internet presence and must learn to incorporate inclusive language= in their writing, even if that were not part of their training. They need to express how their work contr= ibutes to the reduction of harm in society, despite being advised by some o= f the people who are doing the harm.<u></u><u></u></p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br> <span style=3D"font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"= >None of this, much of which I find to be mere unjustified assertion, is an= argument for shifting the weight of dissemination of work toward non-refer= eed open access.=C2=A0 By the way, when was it the case that a solid knowledge of statistical techniques was unnecessary?= =C2=A0 Hey, you don't have to wire together analog equipment to generat= e your signals!</span><br> <br> <u></u><u></u></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br> Preprints are not a magical solution that can eliminate the multiple barrie= rs that I described above. But they have tangible value, and reflect adapta= tion to a changing academic landscape, rather than reflecting some loss of = =E2=80=9Cstandards=E2=80=9D that are designed to protect those already at the top, and which were established under an enti= rely different system of constraints.<u></u><u></u></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0 <br> Preprints help address the needs for 1) visibility and 2) quicker feedback = on your work from a wider variety of scholars who might not have been invit= ed to review, simply because they were not in the network of the associate = editor. These factors are often yoked together; the channels that spread awareness of a preprint (like Twi= tter) might also be the same channels that generate discussion that becomes= useful feedback. The tendency (or need) to use these dissemination channel= s probably reinforces the generational divide on this thread. I assure you that the comments I've received fr= om people enthusiastic enough to read a preprint have had meaningful influe= nce and value. And those comments can come from a wider variety of people w= hose opinions have been historically discounted. Experienced reviewers will always have a place in our scientif= ic discourse, but to discount the benefit and potential of preprints is to = be willfully detached from our current reality.<u></u><u></u></p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helv= etica",sans-serif"><br> I never said one should not use pre-prints for whatever benefit they can co= nfer.</span><br> <br> <u></u><u></u></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br> Matt<u></u><u></u></p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p= > <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">-- <u></u><u></u></p> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b>Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. | </b>Professor Emerit= us<u></u><u></u></p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) = | UConn School of Medicine <br> 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401<br> Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495<br> <br> <img style=3D"width: 1.302in; height: 0.5in;" id=3D"m_-7721600493928519573P= icture_x0020_2" src=3D"cid:1888f3b20894cff311" width=3D"125" height=3D"48" = border=3D"0"><u></u><u></u></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br clear=3D"all"> <u></u><u></u></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"m_-7721600493928519573gmailsignaturep= refix">-- </span><u></u><u></u></p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Matthew Winn, AuD, PhD<u></u><u></u></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Associate Professor<u></u><u></u></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences<u></u><u></u></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">University of Minnesota<u></u><u></u></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div></blockquote></div></div> --00000000000038fc2205fd6fded5-- --00000000000038fc2405fd6fded6 Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <1888f3b20894cff311> X-Attachment-Id: 1888f3b20894cff311 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAH0AAAAwCAMAAAALmIWlAAAAGXRFWHRTb2Z0d2FyZQBBZG9iZSBJ bWFnZVJlYWR5ccllPAAAADNQTFRFKzVYHCZM4eLn8PHzpKi30dTbaG+IlZqrs7fDWWB8O0Nkd32U wsXPSlJwhoufDRhA////A68jmAAAABF0Uk5T/////////////////////wAlrZliAAACYklEQVR4 2uzY22KDIAwAUC7e6gjw/187gUC4OetaupflaTXKWSuBKNMuJptC+QMCP20auPHBQCubBWU46K24 uB7NfZ58ZqaMP8D8AEBHtT/goXnB8WPwBf8r1WYUXWxUOZobHcJXIMcfONclmE4s0lrRzYBIOjvT jX5WV6YbP2ZQJ6TWjfiAbuYzHW7p+xpuolQrP83sjQ5nupnu6LqaJ92MbnSznulcfkBHpNXNY6y+ c0JKnWX1eFeflQt5qcNESKnrQMrf6LSAXeiWkEoXdOU4nZBKxzPnoTohtW5ZZyK8W09Io6tYjyP1 iDS6XbAeh815S0irS6zHUfXuB0Ok1S3W41AdEWh1/Nb7UD1bWytd0LY4ThdnerYbBJ1taT5XBmy4 J8mNnWagp5fbba6HeiTdneK6vNgoFj0EhyO4eSZT6AlpdNXoNzqYi94GbIU0eqhHp3d5drRf4heZ Uo9Iq8vYptup6VB37H6m/W6m0hFpdaxH3/yK9cHpVq5Zy59n2GMV/QxPGdV9NElPE9njyOozsfWW Kq6j7bLuw97KPBnM/mX86//6n+tH/yLKP7AUXcyd80Lx53WnspB47ty5qKND1gLockfIFzHR7srp Q7X0+6GgHPNFXedPyaN1CPFli71z+ZBeTxbcI2RXxwOQj/lW/Ui610Z6gA4a32WRrssXYbO76V/Z y6FLnZVj/qCnqGcdZE1DeFKcntWrMV/RZXCh7B/fpF/+8tQQx6J74y9/Oeuyrm75+Jyf8oKWH9CL 1SYNJtJ91HTOAD2fdjPN9UcsumwmDNYXqvPtOLa9pH8LMACnoV0siZAyOAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== --00000000000038fc2405fd6fded6--