From my inbox….
Need a place to send that manuscript of non-results lying dormant in your bottom drawer? Try this new journal this new journal. (Thanks for the correction, Chris.)
I wonder, what would Munger think? Would a publication in the Journal of Spurious Correlation be better than no publication at all?
As a Popperian social science, I often wonder why major political science journals only publish results that support hypotheses and few that falsify them. Since political science is a Popperian social science (in general), why do major journals in the discipline only publish results that support hypotheses and few that falsify them? Maybe this is one step in that direction.
There’s a Popperian science of Michelle Dionism? Creepy.
I’m still thinking about what journal should receive my never-completed article on polling the dead.
Silly rabbit, I meant that political science is a Popperian social science….not that I’m a Popperian social scientist.
Actually, what you said is that you were a Popperian social science (unto yourself?).
And I want my Trix!
And who said blogs weren’t peer reviewed?
Is the above edit any better?
Sure. Not that I had anything against Popper in the first place.
My Spanish is rusty (ok, nonexistent), but I’m pretty sure that link has nothing to do with a peer-reviewed journal.
And… a pub is a pub is a pub, at least in my book (and, for that matter, in the books of most people at BA/MA institutions… the Research I rat race is for the birds, IMHO).
Thanks for the correction. That post had problems all around…guess it’s a sign of how busy I have been.
Here’s the real link that arrived in my inbox.