Professor WGA and Friends Guide to Science - How to counter the TransEthics, TransLifeLife and hack writers in the Rat King

[multiverse]

@multiverse

Can we grab this article? "Ethical Concerns About Emerging Treatment Paradigms for Gender Dysphoria."

yes, I hope you can see the pdf attachment. sorry...newbie...sight

You! I like you! Thanks!

 

[Casta Spersions]

Hello kiwis! Extensive lurker here, VERY interested and well read on the topic at hand which inspired me to sign up and offer my two cents.

Firstly, you should be able to find the BBC documentary on archive.org.

Secondly, I believe the kryptonite for this movement will be the early transition and pre-pubertal suppression of gender dysphoric children. There is one aspect of those treatment which I have seen virtually no discussion on and it is a very significant side effect.

We could talk about the bone damaging effects of lupron (a cancer drug) on pre pubescent children, but I've certainly seen it discussed by gender critical folks and concerned parents. We could talk about the ethical ramifications of sterilizing children, or the dangers of long term artificial hormone use but again, we wouldn't be the first.

I'd like to address the fact that these children who take blockers and then cross sex hormones, will remain sexually immature for life. They won't develop a libido, and though their bodies will grow and they will develop secondary sex characteristics, they will never experience orgasm and I doubt they will know sexual pleasure, even. It gets a bit squicky talking about children in this context but understand that these are life long side effects; when these children become adults, their reproductive systems will remain stunted. Estrogen will not mature a pre pubescent penis and neither will surgery. People like Zinnia and many other adult troons who were allowed to experience their sexuality (and indeed, make it known how important it is to them) advocate for children becoming permanently sexually stunted without a second thought for their well being. I mean, in a sense, these children won't know what they are missing, but this hardly seems ethical. You'd have a very hard time convincing me that a child understands the ramifications of being an adult without functioning genitalia of either sex, or a poor approximation of. A child simply cannot understand or consent to that, nor should they!

If anyone is watching I am Jazz this season you can see exactly how this medical therapy plays out. In consultations with SRS doctors she is asked "Are you orgasmic?" and Jazz makes it clear and even openly states she has no libido. The sad thing is, everyone is acting like she just hasn't developed that way yet, and it will happen in the future, or perhaps when the surgery is complete. Yet they've determined Jazz won't be getting any taller, and is likely finished developing for the most part - these discussions are taking place just shy of her 16th birthday. Jazz does not even seem to know who she is sexually attracted to - I maintain this is because her primary sex characteristics, her reproductive system, was never allowed to mature.

There WILL be lawsuits, we will probably see this in the next five to ten years. I actually believe this is why drugs like lupron are so astronomically expensive; they have the liability built into the price. Lawsuits won't undo the damage of being medical guinea pigs on very dangerous drugs. Troons will argue these drugs have been used "safely" for years; for older teens this may be true, but putting pre pubescent children on lupron and then administering cross sex hormones at 12/13 is in fact, a new practice. Keep in mind that no long term studies of children who have taken blockers then cross sex hormones exist, to my knowledge. Children who were given lupron for precocious puberty in the eighties are now adults, many with significant health issues:
https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/

Women who were prescribed this for endometriosis and IVF share their experience, as well as men who took the drug for prostate cancer:

https://rxisk.org/lupron-a-nightmare-produced-in-abbvie/

There WILL be a backlash, and it can't come soon enough...

 

[multiverse]

Part of the Lupron issue - out of so many issues - is that because precocious puberty is so rare in general, AND because mostly female children are affected by it, there's almost no data on what it does to male children 10-15 years after treatment. And what it's done to female patients by the time they're in their 20s is horrifying:

It's much more common for male children to present gender dysphoria - but who knows what Lupron is doing to their bodies.

 

[WeaponsGradeAutism]

For all old and new researcher autists, Sci-Hub is NOT verboten. A lot of woo science is hidden behind unnecessary pay walls. So, my stance.

1. Woo Science that needs a thrashing is fair game.
2. A lot of paywall science may actually not be paywall, check before using Sci-Hub.
3. Go through ResearchGate and it's ilk first.
4. Use Sci-Hub as a last resort for legitimate research.
5. If it's something you think @multiverse, @Jaimas and I can get through request, then let us know.
6. Do not use Sci-Hub's address in here. Miss Elbakyan has a hard time keeping an address because of the paywall bastards.

These guidelines will be added to the OP after a while. And if there is any nagging questions, don't hesitate. We may be grumpy autists around here, but we're a helpful bunch after the same cause.

Just be sure to keep everything neat so @Feline Darkmage doesn't have to fall on her sword for us. We like our kitten overseer. Let's make sure we keep her happy.

 

[WeaponsGradeAutism]

1982 paper by Søensen as a follow-up for his 1980 paper. He is joined by Herben Pretoft in this study.

Spoiler

Since the first sex-reassignment operation in Denmark at the Rigshospitalet in 1951, a total of 37 patients, 29 males and 8 females, have had sexmodifying surgery and a change in legal status. In our experience a basic insecure gender identity is a predominant trait in transsexuals, dating back to earliest childhood. This insecurity and a concomitant anxiety are overcome differently by the two transsexual sexes. In male transsexualism, the most outstanding characteristic is a narcissistic withdrawal to a condition marked by submission and pseudofemininity.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541980?LI=true

PDF is attached and acquired legally for all to dissect and discuss.

 

[Slippery Bogle]

What seems lacking is a sociological study on the impacts of a very small minority on the hijacking of the public discourse and resulting censorship even of respected professionals. There are some case studies like the article of Alice Dreger on Michael Bailey and many anecdotal reports but no systematic study of the phenomenon. It really is a form of McCarthyism but from the left. It seems the narcissistic rage of the few manage to terrorize a whole section of the population into silence and widely spread opinions are suddenly marginalized. And maybe that is true of others issues, but it seems much more systematic with this one. It seems that traditionally, both the left and right ends of the political spectrum at least shared one common value, freedom of speech. Anyhow, if anyone can point to one such sociological study that would be very useful methink. Not that there is not sometimes very legitimate reasons to censor some form of speech when clearly it does harm, for example child porn. But in this case, censorship comes more from the terror campaigns lead by a minority of mentally ill men than any legitimate reasons. Unless you buy into that saying a man is a biological adult male and a woman is a biological adult female kills troons. Which is nonsense because its a neutral, objective statement of facts. Imagine an African American going bonkers because a Caucasian remarks his skin is paler...You look at Greek or Roman sculptures, or even much older art depicting men and women and there is a reason they did not feel the need to put a label saying this is a man, this is a woman. Are we going to destroy the meaning of every words we use to refer to obvious material realities, apple, dog, cat...?

Anyhoo, the transgender activist Andrea James who went after Dreger and Bailey : '' Ms. James was one of many transgender women who were deeply offended by Michael Bailey’s 2003 book, The Man Who Would Be Queen. But Ms. James was notable for the way she decided to go after Bailey’s children to extract revenge. She posted on the internet photographs of Bailey’s daughter and labeled her a “cock-starved exhibitionist.” James also claimed in her online publications that there “are two types of children in the Bailey household,” namely “those who have been sodomized by their father [and] those who have not.” http://alicedreger.com/in_fear
created a huge headache at wikipedia for promoting pedophilia and generally stalky behaviors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchiveHebephilia :

``Jokestress/Andrea James has repeatedly acted inappropriately at the talk page of the Hebephilia article. Often, she's either attacking User:James Cantor/James Cantor or making demands. James Cantor is someone that she should generally have no contact with while on Wikipedia, by the way. Check their user pages, Wikipedia biography articles, and the Hebephilia talk page for why that is. In this section, not only did she demand that editors start doing what she wants done with the article, but also suggested that we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by not revealing our true (real life) identities while editing this topic. When editors understandably did not take kindly to her comments, naming some offenses she has committed off Wikipedia, she decided to respond with more venom and tamper with others' talk page comments. ``

How a person with such an unethical background is invited as a public speaker and not in jail? And what are Andrea qualifications for being such a expert? From her own webpage:

''After graduating with a Master’s Degree in English from University of Chicago, I wrote ads for ten years at top Chicago agencies. My ads for blue-chip clients premiered on the Super Bowl and other major television events, where they were frequently among audience favorites.''

 

[Wallace]

What seems lacking is a sociological study on the impacts of a very small minority on the hijacking of the public discourse and resulting censorship even of respected professionals. There are some case studies like the article of Alice Dreger on Michael Bailey and many anecdotal reports but no systematic study of the phenomenon. It really is a form of McCarthyism but from the left. It seems the narcissistic rage of the few manage to terrorize a whole section of the population into silence and widely spread opinions are suddenly marginalized. And maybe that is true of others issues, but it seems much more systematic with this one. It seems that traditionally, both the left and right ends of the political spectrum at least shared one common value, freedom of speech. Anyhow, if anyone can point to one such sociological study that would be very useful methink. Not that there is not sometimes very legitimate reasons to censor some form of speech when clearly it does harm, for example child porn. But in this case, censorship comes more from the terror campaigns lead by a minority of mentally ill men than any legitimate reasons. Unless you buy into that saying a man is a biological adult male and a woman is a biological adult female kills troons. Which is nonsense because its a neutral, objective statement of facts. Imagine an African American going bonkers because a Caucasian remarks his skin is paler...You look at Greek or Roman sculptures, or even much older art depicting men and women and there is a reason they did not feel the need to put a label saying this is a man, this is a woman. Are we going to destroy the meaning of every words we use to refer to obvious material realities, apple, dog, cat...?

Anyhoo, the transgender activist Andrea James who went after Dreger and Bailey : '' Ms. James was one of many transgender women who were deeply offended by Michael Bailey’s 2003 book, The Man Who Would Be Queen. But Ms. James was notable for the way she decided to go after Bailey’s children to extract revenge. She posted on the internet photographs of Bailey’s daughter and labeled her a “cock-starved exhibitionist.” James also claimed in her online publications that there “are two types of children in the Bailey household,” namely “those who have been sodomized by their father [and] those who have not.” http://alicedreger.com/in_fear
created a huge headache at wikipedia for promoting pedophilia and generally stalky behaviors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchiveHebephilia :

``Jokestress/Andrea James has repeatedly acted inappropriately at the talk page of the Hebephilia article. Often, she's either attacking User:James Cantor/James Cantor or making demands. James Cantor is someone that she should generally have no contact with while on Wikipedia, by the way. Check their user pages, Wikipedia biography articles, and the Hebephilia talk page for why that is. In this section, not only did she demand that editors start doing what she wants done with the article, but also suggested that we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by not revealing our true (real life) identities while editing this topic. When editors understandably did not take kindly to her comments, naming some offenses she has committed off Wikipedia, she decided to respond with more venom and tamper with others' talk page comments. ``

How a person with such an unethical background is invited as a public speaker and not in jail? And what are Andrea qualifications for being such a expert? From her own webpage:

''After graduating with a Master’s Degree in English from University of Chicago, I wrote ads for ten years at top Chicago agencies. My ads for blue-chip clients premiered on the Super Bowl and other major television events, where they were frequently among audience favorites.''

My guess is that this would be another case of narcissistic rage. Anything that threatens the source of narcissistic supply--in this case, being recognized as special and deserving of special dispensation due to being trans--must be destroyed by whatever means necessary. Liberal politics are once again used as a fig leaf that excuses these attacks or masks the emotional extortion that the rat king regularly employs.

Narcissism has increased noticeably in the last several years, particularly among college-age students. My current theory is that this is linked to the rise in people of this age group claiming to be transgender, starting from previous studies that show high degrees of comorbidity between GID and other personality disorders:

Personality Disorders in Persons with Gender Identity Disorder

The frequency of personality disorders in patients with gender identity disorder

How Our Culture of Narcissism Creates Trans Obsessions

Trans movements and arguments of orientation remove responsibility for our actions from our own shoulders. Every person is simply who they are. And it is no longer our job to fit into society for the betterment of others, it is society’s job to fit us in and make us happy. The appeal of this narcissist culture is obvious. Our errors and transgressions are no longer our fault, but merely manifestations of a repressive social model. Everything we are or do is right, has to be right, because it is a true expression of ourselves.

 

[Slippery Bogle]

1982 paper by Søensen as a follow-up for his 1980 paper. He is joined by Herben Pretoft in this study.


PDF is attached and acquired legally for all to dissect and discuss.

From what I got, the male transexuals had a fairly good control of their behaviors at the time the study was made: ``Of the male transsexuals, 55 % show strong or extremely strong ability to control impulses and drives (again, 100% in the core group, which is not surprising since they were characterized by good ego strength and lack of genital sexual satisfaction). As a rule, there is a parallel moderation of aggressive and libidinal drives, yet some of the males had more difficulty controlling aggressive than libidinal impulses.``
One of the thing to ponder about is that the 80s were quite a different time. I would say these guys had to control their behaviors to fit in and be accepted. And they had no social medias platform to act out. There were a lot more environmental pressure to behave. The conditions of this social experiment have changed markedly.

Here is the article by Lawrence (200 publicly available. Again its a case study based on the Bailey affair but she argues rather convincingly that it was fuelled by narcisstic rage. But there are no solid study, like some sort of epidemiological study, or even a group study, documenting it:

What conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing analysis? First, I propose that there are good theoretical and clinical reasons for believing that narcissistic disorders are prevalent among nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals. At present, however, there is little solid empirical evidence to support this belief. I suggest that this would be a promising area for additional research, especially because the results could have important clinical implications. Meanwhile, clinicians and scholars should perhaps be more aware that angry reactions they elicit from nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals might represent narcissistic rage, rather than mature, instrumental anger. This awareness might aid in interpretation and also facilitate empathy.

So basically, it seems the public is the experiment in which we allow the troons to act out their undiagnosed rage. Maybe people should know it too, not just clinicians and scholars.

 

[GS 281]

I have been lurking this thread and it certainly is unique. One thing I think is important is that we don't let hyperbole or a misunderstanding of research methods intrude on efforts to understand what we are trying to understand. Also, I am seeing a lot of literature here where we are accepting conclusions that seem to conform to what seems to be what the general consensus on KF regarding trannies is, but without the same level of scrutiny placed on the research methods of scholars that are disagreed with. Also, there is a lot of anecdotal discussion in this thread related to research that does not conform. I grabbed this post as an example.

So I decided to look into it, and give them the benefit of the doubt. I thought to myself: "Surely, all these claims of being genderspecials is not the result of them all playing pretend, otherwise we are looking at the mass delusion of thousands of idiots and a movement that is genuinely destroying the ability to advocate for transpeople. There must be more to it." So I did the logical thing and for months (off and on when not working on said article) wound up repeatedly staring at allegedly peer-reviewed "studies" that allegedy proved the whole 57 genders thing, as well as the ones that claimed you didn't need to be dysphoric to be trans.

This is a rather significant accusation to make, and without being involved in a journal or conference, it would be quite difficult to call into question whether or not published research was peer-reviewed or not. Generally, the standard is double-blind peer-reviewed. All this "allegedly" stuff suggests that @Jaimas has discovered something that would be rather difficult for him to discover.

Every single one

was fundamentally flawed on some basic level: Either having no control groups, the studies being backed by people who had a stake in the results showing that this gender insanity was normal, coming from a paper mill (read: publication that will claim anything is peer reviewed if you throw money at them), having improper sample sizes (One sample group consisted of 11 people), having peers review that were openly biased, improper citations, sources that didn't prove what they were claiming (and often the opposite), and in at least one case, the person behind the study self-peer reviewing.

First, coming back to this whole thing about peer-review, how did you find out that the study was "self-peer reviewed"?

If you have a list of these studies I would love to go through them with you, @Jaimas, because a lot of these things you deem as fundamental flaws sound like they could probably not be problems at all. For example, this thing about not having control groups. Most research won't. You only need control groups in experimental research. If you're doing some sort of correlation research or qualitative research, then there wouldn't be a need for control groups. Control variables will be used in like modeling, but thats entirely different. Having a sample of 11 people is generally accepted in experimental and qualitative research. You aren't going to go out and interview 100 people for a qualitative study, that would be dumb. The standard for doing t-tests in experimental research is small group sizes. You can have groups of 4-6 people no problem. You're just testing the significance of the difference in mean scores.

Almost all of these reports were (and are) locked behind paywalls as well, requiring you to have a school's backing or pay about $10-50 per study (depending on the source), a common practice with studies done when those doing them have zero faith in their own statistics (Anita Sarkeesian's own cited studies, for example, are similarly paywalled and loaded with absolute nonsense).

This is is a strong mischaracterization of why it is that the "paywalls" exist. These institutes that run these journals, especially the prestigious and well-respected journals need money. They need it so they can edit, publish, maintain some administration, subsidize the cost of yearly conferences, support current research through grants, etc. This all costs money. On the flip side, the predators will charge researchers to publish and run their shit open access. So the question sorta becomes, do you trust an academic source more because they're open access? You really shouldn't because they're trying to cash in, not advance a field of study. This is more a conspiracy theory with no basis in reality.

I've periodically checked other studies that come down the pipe trying to establish the whole 57 genders thing and likewise the "you don't need dysphoric to be trans" angle. Not one has thus far passed muster and I am now entirely sure that both are entirely a load of bunk. If anyone else on the Farms wants to take a crack at these fucking things, feel free.

I would argue that exploring gender theory where gender is beyond the scope of our biology and more social and psychological phenomenon is valid, and that I have seen studies expressing the idea of gender as a measurable trait of an individual which would pass muster.

I'm not trying to attack anyone or this thread. Just wanted to express how we could probably be more convincing, accurate and precise.

 

[Slippery Bogle]

I have seen studies expressing the idea of gender as a measurable trait of an individual which would pass muster.

I'm not trying to attack anyone or this thread. Just wanted to express how we could probably be more convincing, accurate and precise.

I would like some references to support your point. Which study would pass muster? Which gender attributes are measurable and observable which cannot be attributed to a social construct? It seems the same critic you have can be said of your post. I think it would be very interesting and enlightening to look at the methodology of the studies you refer to and we could all look at them critically.

If @Jaimas could provide the references to some the studies he mentioned, that would be great. They may be there but I did not see them.

To know if a journal is peer-reviewed, easy, check the journal policy. No need to be in the in crowd. Typically, proceedings from conferences are not peer-reviewed though the findings may be reviewed in-house (aka Bob-Next -Door, can you check if I got this right before I make an idiot of myself).

The characterization as to why many journals are being paywall is pretty accurate: make money. Which is why so many researchers switch to open access. I invite you to read this paper in Nature . Elaborating on this seems to go beyond the scope of the thread. But here is an excerpt:

''Commercial publishers are widely acknowledged to make larger profits than organizations run by academic institutions. A 2008 study by London-based Cambridge Economic Policy Associates estimated margins at 20% for society publishers, 25% for university publishers and 35% for commercial publishers3 . This is an irritant for many researchers, says Deborah Shorley, scholarly communications adviser at Imperial College London — not so much because commercial profits are larger, but because the money goes to shareholders rather than being ploughed back into science or education.``

 

[GS 281]

Which study would pass muster?

To "pass muster" the purpose of a study would need to be related to a current body of research and respond to a question where new knowledge would need to emerge from the analysis of data. The data analyzed would need to come from research procedure that are generally accepted for the research method and design selected, and the design of the research should be such that it would support response to the research question.

Which gender attributes are measurable and observable which cannot be attributed to a social construct?

You snipped out the part of my sentence where i say I would argue that exploring gender theory where gender is beyond the scope of our biology and more social and psychological phenomenon is valid, which would make it clear that I accept it as social construction. That doesn't make gender study and theory based on gender and gender attributes any less valid. So I don't understand why you are asking for what you are asking here.

To know if a journal is peer-reviewed, easy, check the journal policy. No need to be in the in crowd. Typically, proceedings from conferences are not peer-reviewed though the findings may be reviewed in-house (aka Bob-Next -Door, can you check if I got this right before I make an idiot of myself).

I would contest this. It is important to have people skilled in research methods and knowledgeable in a body of research performing peer review. Poor journals aren't going to have leaders in a field performing peer review. Often, they will have people from countries with lower academic standards than they have in the West. You're typically going to see better and more relevant research in Academy of Management than the Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology.

The characterization as to why many journals are being paywall is pretty accurate: make money. Which is why so many researchers switch to open access

With many open access journals, the researcher themselves is paying to get published. There is a thread on this idiot named Ashu who is involved in something like this. I also suggest looking up the Clute Institute. There are a lot of good open access journals and its a model we should be moving towards, but by and large, when you look at predatory journal listings, most are open access. On the flip side, most that are behind the so-called "paywall" are research institutes that are associated with Universities or research institutes.

I would argue that there is much, much greater fuckery going on with the open access ones than the "paywall" ones, and it isn't because they are open access, but because they are looking to cash in on people who need to publish and cannot get published in "paywall" journals. Look at this list.

http://beallslist.weebly.com/

If you want to see an example of one of these predators, look at the JKMEIT.
http://www.scientificpapers.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-submitting-scientific-papers/
Search here for more https://doaj.org/. These journals by and large are pretty low quality. Open access would be nice but there are other concerns and frankly if you want to get a hold of an article, just email a researcher and he will likely slide it to you. Also, people are putting stuff up on researchgate and academia.edu and personal college pages.

 

[WeaponsGradeAutism]

Both of you have good points all around, @yawning sneasel and @Slippery Bogle.

Sneasel is right in that we err on the side of caution with reports. Honestly, we should make sure we comb through every report we get. Even the 32 flavor gender ones need to be evaluated for posterity.

And again, use ResearchGate, Academia, and the college open pages. Then, paywalls like Taylor or Springer have some reliable reports all around.

And from what I've seen, yes, woo science hides behind a pay wall. Legitimate reports do too, but it's mainly a lot of older reports that do. And even then, money is used for the archive upkeep.

 

[Slippery Bogle]

To "pass muster" the purpose of a study would need to be related to a current body of research and respond to a question where new knowledge would need to emerge from the analysis of data. The data analyzed would need to come from research procedure that are generally accepted for the research method and design selected, and the design of the research should be such that it would support response to the research question.

I said ``I would like some references to support your point. Which study would pass muster? Which gender attributes are measurable and observable which cannot be attributed to a social construct? ....I think it would be very interesting and enlightening to look at the methodology of the studies you refer to and we could all look at them critically.`` It seems my question was ambiguous. I will rephrase it: What studies were you specifically referring to that pass your idea of muster?

It seems that one of the points we are trying to clarify here is what is man and what is a woman. It is certainly one of the main political agenda of the transgender lobby to change the definition of what people have understood for as long as we have an historical record. Is there any valid reasons for changing definitions on which the vast majority of the population are agreeing upon? In the absence of valid reasons, is not not some sort of collective gaslighting from the translobby? Is the narcissistic rage directed at people not willing to comply for example to the pronouns police justified?

 

[AnOminous]

Also from am earlier paper by Anne Lawrence
Lawrence, Anne A. "Shame and narcissistic rage in autogynephilic transsexualism." Archives of Sexual Behavior 37.3 (200: 457-461.

"Narcissistic rage" is a pretty perfect summation of the mentality of the raging troon cows we feature here, especially Greta.

 

[WeaponsGradeAutism]

"Narcissistic rage" is a pretty perfect summation of the mentality of the raging troon cows we feature here, especially Greta.

It really is, friend. And Greta has gone to lengths for his rages, including visiting Null.

 

[GS 281]

`I would like some references to support your point.

Not to be a dick, but what point do you mean? The point of the quoted paragraph in question was that it is valid to investigate gender as a social and psychological phenomenon. I am not trying to sound like a prick in asking this, but why do you want me to post references to articles where gender "cannot be attributed to a social construct" when I believe that it is in part a social phenomenon?

 

[WeaponsGradeAutism]

Not to be a dick, but what point do you mean? The point of the quoted paragraph in question was that it is valid to investigate gender as a social and psychological phenomenon. I am not trying to sound like a prick in asking this, but why do you want me to post references to articles where gender "cannot be attributed to a social construct" when I believe that it is in part a social phenomenon?

That is actually a good point. If a social phenomenon, which avenues should we look in, in your opinion?

Also, @Slippery Bogle, if you two want to hash something out, talk in conversation. This thread isn't the place. Infighting is the enemy of true information.

 

[Jaimas]

I would like some references to support your point. Which study would pass muster? Which gender attributes are measurable and observable which cannot be attributed to a social construct? It seems the same critic you have can be said of your post. I think it would be very interesting and enlightening to look at the methodology of the studies you refer to and we could all look at them critically.

If @Jaimas could provide the references to some the studies he mentioned, that would be great. They may be there but I did not see them.

To know if a journal is peer-reviewed, easy, check the journal policy. No need to be in the in crowd. Typically, proceedings from conferences are not peer-reviewed though the findings may be reviewed in-house (aka Bob-Next -Door, can you check if I got this right before I make an idiot of myself).

The characterization as to why many journals are being paywall is pretty accurate: make money. Which is why so many researchers switch to open access. I invite you to read this paper in Nature . Elaborating on this seems to go beyond the scope of the thread. But here is an excerpt:

''Commercial publishers are widely acknowledged to make larger profits than organizations run by academic institutions. A 2008 study by London-based Cambridge Economic Policy Associates estimated margins at 20% for society publishers, 25% for university publishers and 35% for commercial publishers3 . This is an irritant for many researchers, says Deborah Shorley, scholarly communications adviser at Imperial College London — not so much because commercial profits are larger, but because the money goes to shareholders rather than being ploughed back into science or education.``

It was like back in 2014, man. I haven't gone down that rabbit-hole since.

 

[Slippery Bogle]

It was like back in 2014, man. I haven't gone down that rabbit-hole since.

A rabbit hole sounds like a nice venue by comparison. Controversial topics are rarely fun fields to dwell in. Thanks for your reply and hopefully the references will come back to memories.

 

[Jaimas]

A rabbit hole sounds like a nice venue by comparison. Controversial topics are rarely fun fields to dwell in. Thanks for your reply and hopefully the references will come back to memories.

I tend to be anal-retentive with data collection. I'll see if I have any of the PDFs on one of the backup drives.