jasonchin.bsky.social
Evidence law, metaresearch, forensic science, and criminology at ANU Law. Registered reports editor at FSI: Synergy and associate editor at PPPL. Co-founder of https://metaror.org/.
https://jasonmchin.com
124 posts
1,255 followers
405 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I guess because he doesn't know. I don't know either, but my prior is that they are mostly very solid.
comment in response to
post
Why do you have to assume the worst of people you disagree with? I'm biased as well, but unless I'm completely disengaged from reality, there seems to be a very plausible interpretation of his statement in which he's just trying to be epistemically modest about what he knows about those fields.
comment in response to
post
Yes! I wrote about this here. rdo-olr.org/improving-ex...
comment in response to
post
there were not many, but there were some others, as well as random calls from charities. I can't remember the names, but could look it up. One operated out of George Mason Uni.
comment in response to
post
Again, on my read, I've had exactly the same experience at multiple private funders.
comment in response to
post
Yes, I've had the same thing happen to me. Sometimes no response, sometimes an e-mail as you describe, sometimes something very hopeful asking for more information and then no response when I send it. The public funders are at least more accountable, but still lots of wasted time. Agreed - it's bad.
comment in response to
post
I hope readers of Science will find the open peer review on MetaROR!
comment in response to
post
You might note here that this was subjected to transparent peer review, with an assessment that was quite critical: metaror.org/kotahi/artic...
comment in response to
post
I'm sorry this happened to you, but I don't know if it was personal. In my experience, this is just how funding works. I've probably been turned down over 50 times with various levels of dismissiveness and wasting-of-my-timingness.
comment in response to
post
Invariably must be an overstatement, right?
comment in response to
post
I skimmed the paper and can see how there could be an effect on what is researched and how. It seems like interesting research. I still don't see how it's related to the executive order.
comment in response to
post
You're a good person with a good name!
comment in response to
post
That's because I am!!!
comment in response to
post
Well, I'll keep on trying :). I thought I was a lot more friendly and open-minded than you and Mike, but I'm probably too biased to see otherwise.
comment in response to
post
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do that. Note, I've been emailing for at least a year asking if we could have a quick Zoom to try to talk our our differences, but you still haven't responded, despite saying you would on here.
comment in response to
post
In any event, the history of science and society is replete with examples of bad actors weaponising real (in my view) crises. Very recently, this occurred in Australia to push against measures to improve the environment: theconversation.com/real-problem...
comment in response to
post
That was the point of my example - 'tough on crime', illegal searches, mass incarcerations are awful, awful things. But, of course, it's reasonable and fair for people to point out problems, like what I take to be a very real replication crisis.
comment in response to
post
Note: I am pushing for AIMOS to draft the kind of statement that Joe recommended above. I see that as orthogonal to what you are saying.
comment in response to
post
I don't think what you are saying is possible and see it as bad faith 'told ya so'-type rhetoric. For instance, am I supposed to not say 'I wish my neighbourhood was safer' because one day someone will say, hey I locked up everyone on your street because you said it was unsafe?
comment in response to
post
Yes, this is precisely what MAGA does: it uses otherwise good faith and beneficial ideas to promote its harmful agenda. Other examples include weaponising free speech to promote hate speech and weaponising egalitarianism to discredit expertise.
comment in response to
post
amazing! Do you have a pdf you could send me? [email protected]
comment in response to
post
Hegseth is a relatable king.
comment in response to
post
Christopher Marcum's blog entry (yes we review blog entries too!) about the firehose problem in academic publishing (metaror.org/kotahi/artic...)
comment in response to
post
Why not specifically call out what you are responding to (names!)?
comment in response to
post
Here is a write-up of the conference these were all associated with: www.jasonmchin.com/jason-chin-e...
comment in response to
post
Finally, we have a collaboration between myself, Anna-Maria Arabia, Merryn McKinnon, Matt Page, and Rachel Searston, laying out a plan for systematic reviews in forensic science: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
comment in response to
post
We then turn to Anna Heavey and Max Houck's paper, a theoretical piece (www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...) connecting the theme of communication to the credibility of forensic science.
comment in response to
post
I'm glad to say their paper won the best paper award from ANZPAA NIFS last year: www.anzpaa.org.au/nifs/awards/...
comment in response to
post
Kristy Martire and colleagues' wonderful paper (www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...) starts the issue. It's a large collaboration between research and practice in which they read several major forensic science papers with lessons about what 'error' means in that context.
comment in response to
post
The opening editorial (www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...), written by myself and Justice Belinda Baker (ACT Supreme Court), frames the issues. We suggest interdisciplinarity and transparency are two major themes running through the papers.
comment in response to
post
A wonderful mentor as well!
comment in response to
post
You guys always do the right thing :).