Colin, I hope you're not becoming crustacean-phobic. Even Darwin had a long-standing relationship with barnacles, as you know. And frankly, I, too, have had the occasional amorous thought about malacostracans... but that was after seeing the movie, "The Lobster." Thanks for an interesting read... I have to go wake up my oyster... or she'll be late for school.
I had sea monkeys as a kid. It was a shock to find out they had been anthropomorphized on the packaging and indeed looked like creatures I was fond of eating. I retired from biochemistry in 2001. I never got to marry my actinomycetes although I loved them dearly.
Who sponsored this? “The mission of the Polish Cultural Institute New York is to share Polish heritage, history and art with American audiences, and to promote Poland’s contributions to the success of world culture.”
How is this even close to the mission? How about a documentary on the pierogi in American cuisine.
Not just bizarre but also very arrogant of these humans, not just to marry an entire species as if it were an individual, but to even think that these tiny invertebrates have any awareness of humans whatsoever, let alone care about their opinions. These ladies are so full of themselves that they really think that they have Mother Nature's full attention.
Wow, I actually watched the "performance" or whatever that was. Still can't understand how anybody not suffering from mental illness would participate. I think Marrying the Shrimp is the perfect phrase for pseudo academic research.
Love this piece but small correction: No one swims in the great salt lake. It’s extremely nasty, stinky, and something like three feet deep at its maximum.
No surprise here. But, all published word is forever. Scrutinizing the sworn affidavit a PhD "sexologist," Dr. Christine Wheeler, submitted years ago in my divorce case, I realized she must be committing financial fraud. This is how the 'gender doctors' do it. They have a battalion of practitioners working under their "supervision." The patient pays cash to those underlings but the insurance company was billed by Dr. Wheeler. This psychologist, who submitted said affidavit to defame me in court as the stubborn wife who said, "it's a divorce, we're not lesbians" in response to her triangulated claim. Apparently married men suddenly claiming "trans woman" status make this interpretation of secret crossdressing and infidelities with gay men, who suddenly stood in for the wife in the seedy lavatory of some seedy dive bar. Don't try to stay, not safe! Dr. Wheeler has now been decertified, apparently due to my report of this suspected insurance fraud. I wonder how many papers she wrote on our case?
It's psychotic and queer. Maybe it was written under the effect of amphetamines? They are in vogue. Improve academic performance, and sexual performance. But if too much is used, or too often, the mind becomes a little psychotic, sexuality turns rainbow.
I was expecting it to be in some journal by a non-reputable publisher. I was somewhat alarmed to see it is in a Springer published journal. This even has an impact factor greater than 2. This journal has other "weird" articles. I think that there may be some merit in what this journal is publishing, and that given what else they publish, I can see how the reviewers may have allowed this to be published to give it the "benefit of the doubt" and to have "possibly some value within it". Having looked at the journal, I actually think it is reasonable for this to be published. However, I do think it points to the fact that articles (even if they are peer reviewed) should not be considered "always correct", and I am not so sure that Springer should be publishing a journal like this. It is a bit of a hard problem to solve, because if one has a journal on farming / animal ethics, there may be weird articles. Yet, we should have such journals. This article might be a little too weird, so it is a little surprising that it got past peer review, but it does draw attention to the dilemma.
Nobody ever called me an optimist but I keep hoping against all reason that the article is a spoof like the dead salmon fmri article. https://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/
If you take a look at the journal itself in which this "paper" is published, it should be no surprise that it passed peer review https://link.springer.com/journal/10806 . Peer review is in the eyes of the beholder for a given journal. A better question might be why would a publisher (in this case Sprmger) publish such a journal. The answer is simple, revenue. And you being a proponent of free speech I would guess that you would advocate that a journal be shut down for being crap, nor advocate Springer be punished in any way for publishing such nonsense.
You're pretty good at finding these ludicrous papers that get published in niche journal. If one only followed the posting that you do on this, one would think science is in totally in shambles. But it's not. Certainly there are a very small number of areas in which scientific research is being influenced by social issues. Calling out cases where those conflicts are occurring and demonstrating exactly where social perspectives are clouding scientific reasoning are worthwhile. But hopefully more detailed than a screen shot of a title and abstract.
AND there is a helluva lot of research being done outside your current project area that people would find interesting and which is going through a proper peer review process.
Similar thoughts here. Apparently the journal in question “…encourages rigorous, contextualized ethical and political analyses of agricultural and environmental issues that are particularly attentive to issues of power, equity, and justice.” So, this seems like just the kind of thing they are looking to publish.
Colin, I hope you're not becoming crustacean-phobic. Even Darwin had a long-standing relationship with barnacles, as you know. And frankly, I, too, have had the occasional amorous thought about malacostracans... but that was after seeing the movie, "The Lobster." Thanks for an interesting read... I have to go wake up my oyster... or she'll be late for school.
School is for fish, Frederick. Your oyster should stay in her lane and out of fish safe spaces.
And just how do you know what her pronouns are? Are you enforcing the binary on a bivalve? Are you a species imperialist?
Shouldn't that be, "what their pronouns are" to avoid any rational thought in your comment.
All shrimp matter.
I am utterly and completely speechless.
I had sea monkeys as a kid. It was a shock to find out they had been anthropomorphized on the packaging and indeed looked like creatures I was fond of eating. I retired from biochemistry in 2001. I never got to marry my actinomycetes although I loved them dearly.
Was it written by AI? That is the question.
Who sponsored this? “The mission of the Polish Cultural Institute New York is to share Polish heritage, history and art with American audiences, and to promote Poland’s contributions to the success of world culture.”
How is this even close to the mission? How about a documentary on the pierogi in American cuisine.
Not just bizarre but also very arrogant of these humans, not just to marry an entire species as if it were an individual, but to even think that these tiny invertebrates have any awareness of humans whatsoever, let alone care about their opinions. These ladies are so full of themselves that they really think that they have Mother Nature's full attention.
Wow, I actually watched the "performance" or whatever that was. Still can't understand how anybody not suffering from mental illness would participate. I think Marrying the Shrimp is the perfect phrase for pseudo academic research.
Well ... as a dolphin I can say that hydrosexuality is great.
Love this piece but small correction: No one swims in the great salt lake. It’s extremely nasty, stinky, and something like three feet deep at its maximum.
Ok I fact checked myself and apparently it’s 25 feet deep but still, it’s gross. :)
No surprise here. But, all published word is forever. Scrutinizing the sworn affidavit a PhD "sexologist," Dr. Christine Wheeler, submitted years ago in my divorce case, I realized she must be committing financial fraud. This is how the 'gender doctors' do it. They have a battalion of practitioners working under their "supervision." The patient pays cash to those underlings but the insurance company was billed by Dr. Wheeler. This psychologist, who submitted said affidavit to defame me in court as the stubborn wife who said, "it's a divorce, we're not lesbians" in response to her triangulated claim. Apparently married men suddenly claiming "trans woman" status make this interpretation of secret crossdressing and infidelities with gay men, who suddenly stood in for the wife in the seedy lavatory of some seedy dive bar. Don't try to stay, not safe! Dr. Wheeler has now been decertified, apparently due to my report of this suspected insurance fraud. I wonder how many papers she wrote on our case?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB0K16qx1FA&t=8s
It's psychotic and queer. Maybe it was written under the effect of amphetamines? They are in vogue. Improve academic performance, and sexual performance. But if too much is used, or too often, the mind becomes a little psychotic, sexuality turns rainbow.
I put a paper on PsyArxiv, discussing this issue that involves also a lot of students: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/uxj4f.
It is like they ask ChatGPT to make a movement out of a list of disconnected words they thought of after a hit of cannabis and a rub in the shower.
I was expecting it to be in some journal by a non-reputable publisher. I was somewhat alarmed to see it is in a Springer published journal. This even has an impact factor greater than 2. This journal has other "weird" articles. I think that there may be some merit in what this journal is publishing, and that given what else they publish, I can see how the reviewers may have allowed this to be published to give it the "benefit of the doubt" and to have "possibly some value within it". Having looked at the journal, I actually think it is reasonable for this to be published. However, I do think it points to the fact that articles (even if they are peer reviewed) should not be considered "always correct", and I am not so sure that Springer should be publishing a journal like this. It is a bit of a hard problem to solve, because if one has a journal on farming / animal ethics, there may be weird articles. Yet, we should have such journals. This article might be a little too weird, so it is a little surprising that it got past peer review, but it does draw attention to the dilemma.
Dang, Sea-Monkeys are fun--especially the illustrations in the package inserts.
Nobody ever called me an optimist but I keep hoping against all reason that the article is a spoof like the dead salmon fmri article. https://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/
If you take a look at the journal itself in which this "paper" is published, it should be no surprise that it passed peer review https://link.springer.com/journal/10806 . Peer review is in the eyes of the beholder for a given journal. A better question might be why would a publisher (in this case Sprmger) publish such a journal. The answer is simple, revenue. And you being a proponent of free speech I would guess that you would advocate that a journal be shut down for being crap, nor advocate Springer be punished in any way for publishing such nonsense.
You're pretty good at finding these ludicrous papers that get published in niche journal. If one only followed the posting that you do on this, one would think science is in totally in shambles. But it's not. Certainly there are a very small number of areas in which scientific research is being influenced by social issues. Calling out cases where those conflicts are occurring and demonstrating exactly where social perspectives are clouding scientific reasoning are worthwhile. But hopefully more detailed than a screen shot of a title and abstract.
AND there is a helluva lot of research being done outside your current project area that people would find interesting and which is going through a proper peer review process.
Similar thoughts here. Apparently the journal in question “…encourages rigorous, contextualized ethical and political analyses of agricultural and environmental issues that are particularly attentive to issues of power, equity, and justice.” So, this seems like just the kind of thing they are looking to publish.