Academic Studies Recent Edition Wars

[ST]

This is true, but they are using the pretense of being an academic journal. There must be a reason for that.

Psst, in my subtext I was hinting that the reason for the journal to exist is "so undergrad and grad student fanfic authors and enthusiasts can get a publishing credit under their names."

I know a bit about academic journals and societies, and many of them are the product of a dozen people that meet annually in someone's living room, and publish yearly if that. Pick any unusual niche subject, and there's as least three competing journals, only one of which has "street cred", but all their names are so close to each other that they all look equally good on a resume.

Academic clout is more about geek politics than anything else, making it remarkably similar to roleplaying. The quality of the work you produce is way less important than who your department sponsor is and such. It's like the old "DM's girlfriend gets to play a half-succubus and start five levels above us, and yet mysteriously no one publicly complains at the table", all over again.

 

[Harlekin]

Part of me hopes that this so-called academic journal was recently created as a joke just to showcase this one article. So many folks in the edition war threads are screaming for credentials from anyone who posts any opinion (which is utterly ridiculous in itself on a public message board), I could see teh funny of doing something like this.

"See? The research conclusively shows that 4e sucks!"

If this is the case, then you got me! I've been punk'd!

It's a general problem with the new wave of online-journals that they don't have enough high quality submissions and therefore are often scraping the bottom of the barrel, both for scientific articles and (apparently) for other contributions. There have been several cases recently where automatically generated papers were accepted (CRAP paper accepted by journal - opinion - 11 June 2009 - New Scientist).

Unfortunately, this may discredit open-access journals with a better editing policy, but that's a politics discussion that doesn't belong here.

 

[Shemeska]

It's a general problem with the now wave of online-journals that they don't have enough high quality submissions and therefore are often scraping the bottom of the barrel, both for scientific articles and (apparently) for other contributions. There have been several cases recently where automatically generated papers were accepted (CRAP paper accepted by journal - opinion - 11 June 2009 - New Scientist).

I agree with you, and I'd also include New Scientist as part of the problem (their editing and editorializing)

 

[jaerdaph]

It's a general problem with the now wave of online-journals that they don't have enough high quality submissions and therefore are often scraping the bottom of the barrel, both for scientific articles and (apparently) for other contributions. There have been several cases recently where automatically generated papers were accepted (CRAP paper accepted by journal - opinion - 11 June 2009 - New Scientist).

Unfortunately, this may discredit open-access journals with a better editing policy, but that's a politics discussion that doesn't belong here.

I think there is a growing problem with self-proclaimed experts online, a lack of editorial policy, and a lack of standards in general. It started with sites like about.com and it continues with newer sites like examiner.com. Even wikipedia.org, which is good online resource, has to remain constantly vigilant. This is not to say that everyone contributing to those sites is a fraud - far from it.

Of course it doesn't help when the established media can't be bothered to do this anymore either. Case in point, The Old Gray Lady herself.

In the digital age, we need to emphasize critical thinking skills more in our schools.

 

[Harlekin]

I agree with you, and I'd also include New Scientist as part of the problem (their editing and editorializing)

Don't know it well enough to have an option, I picked that article of the Plos newsfeed.

 

[jaerdaph]

I just want to say that my opinions are probably a little more snarky today than usual because my air conditioner died last night and humidity makes me cranky.

I also want to add that roguerouge is one of the best eggs at EN World and my opinionated comments in this thread are in no way directed at rr.

 

[Cadfan]

Argh.

Law is law. Not sorcery. You can't just make stuff up and then sue someone for it and drive them out of business just because you're richer than them.

The part of a lawsuit that is the most expensive, and which is most subject to improper tactical use, is discovery. There are multiple ways to get a lawsuit dismissed prior to discovery, particularly if the lawsuit isn't plausible.

There are situations where someone will drop out of a lawsuit or settle because proceeding is too expensive. These do NOT tend to be situations where the lawsuit was completely fraudulent. The person who dropped out of the suit might choose to characterize things that way, but they're an interested party. There is also a tendency to characterize a decision to settle a lawsuit as being motivated by financial concerns rather than actual wrongdoing when admitting wrongdoing would harm you publically. If you feel that you are being frivolously sued, consult with an attorney. You will find either that you have remedies available to you, or that the suit is not in fact frivolous.

This... verges on the political. Ok, its overtly political. But it shouldn't be partisan in any way:

I believe strongly that popular civic education is a must in a democratic society. I simply do not believe that the right to vote can be exercised well by a person who does not understand at least the basics of the government in which his vote is exercised.

Everyone has things about their country that they wish they could change. But if they do not understand the origins of what they intend to change, of they misattribute fault to the wrong political actors due to a lack of civics knowledge, or if they fail to understand the context in which political decisions or rules arise, they will not be able to use their right to vote to effectively bring about the policy outcomes they desire.

They will use their vote to punish politicians for actions for which they are not responsible, while leaving the actual responsible parties unharmed. They will bring about unintended consequences as they change matters they don't understand. And even worse, this is often a spiraling descent into utter failure, as voters fail to understand their own ultimate responsibility for the unintended consequences of previous elections, and flail about in a desperate effort to change something, anything, that will bring about the outcomes they want.

A person who doesn't understand even the basics of the functioning of the three branches of government, both in theory and in the actual, practical political reality of how they really work in real life, is like a caveman trying to operate a punchcard computer without a manual. Buttons will be pushed, lights will blink, things will happen, but they will not correspond to the operator's wishes.

Courts are not some magical device to bankrupt people you don't like. Lawsuits are not pure acts of financial attrition. To the extent that a fear legal matters can intimidate people into surrendering rights which they did not need to surrender, it is the popular conception of courts as evil black holes into which good people are dragged to their ruin that is most frequently responsible.

 

[jaerdaph]

Argh.

Law is law. Not sorcery.

You know it ain't over until somebody mentions the fat lady who spilled hot coffee on her leg and sued McDonalds.

 

[Obryn]

You know it ain't over until somebody mentions the fat lady who spilled hot coffee on her leg and sued McDonalds.

...Which was actually not really a case of the tort system run amok as it was corporate cover-ups and payoffs. For being an iconic case in tort reform, it sure doesn't look like an abuse of the legal system once you look into it.

-O

 

[billd91]

Argh.

Law is law. Not sorcery. <snip>

You're right. Law is not sorcery. It and the courts, however, are subject to all the foibles of humanity. People will and do use the law and manipulate courts for their own aims even out of proportion to their pretext for using the law in the first place.

Patent trolls file claims, often dubious, in order to try to get a quick settlement out of companies that would rather not pay the financial costs of discovery and risk the dangers of damages. Corporations, or other bodies with deep pockets, use financial attrition against opponents whose claims may be just but who don't have the financial endurance to keep litigating.

So it's not exactly any wonder that the courts have a negative popular reputation. Either we hear about stories involving the issues above or, when some person actually gets a well deserved damage award perhaps with punative damages, spin control will take over and pundits will lament that the penalized corporation will now have to lay people off or will only pass on the cost of the damages to the consumers anyway.

That said, even a negative view of corporations and the courts makes it hard to conclude that Hasbro/WotC really has much of a leg to stand on to force a withdrawal of the OGL or sue anybody under it. The stakes simply aren't large enough for them to spend too much effort in finding or manufacturing a pretext. Give the D&D IP rights to a holding company that has no other business model and I think we'd see some action in this regard.