you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

hmokay

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Read it yourself

For studies involving humans categorized by race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability, socio-economic status, or other socially constructed or socially relevant groupings, authors should:

  • Explicitly describe their methods of categorizing human populations
  • Define categories in as much detail as the study protocol allows

  • Justify their choices of definitions and categories, including for example whether any rules of categorization were required by their funding agency

  • Explain whether (and if so, how) they controlled for confounding variables in their analyses

It certainly doesn't say don't do such studies.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Does it mention the already-standing practice of rejecting papers that would hurt people's feelings or nah? Asking for a friend.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Again, read it for yourself.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I skimmed it. It seems innocuous until you apply the politics of Nature and similar rags. This is carte blanche to deny publication of any science that doesn't fit the narrative. Sorry you can't see it.