> And, although their suggestion about male superiority is pretty unpleasant at multiple levels, it *is* a possible explanation for observational survey results. None of us might like that, but it's possible.
while possible it's also almost completely baseless. It's also possible that these researchers are blonde and the review was actually a subconsious response to blonde hair and odd but true, dark-haired people make the best researchers. No one really wants to admit that blondes are actually stupider but it's something we should be prepared to face when the mountain of evidence in the article reveals this to be a central truth.
It's actually a quite plausible statistical consequence of programs aimed at increasing the number of women in STEM fields.
what?? no not at all. The whole purpose in increasing women in stem was to combat this statistic. It's not a result of trying to get women in. if anything it's a symptom that we still don't have enough women in. that's like saying that increasing the number of minority coders will decrease the overall quality of code produced. It's true in a way that completely ignores causality because all the black and latino kids who are coding now didn't learn to code from their engineering parents on some of the very first personal computing machines. Hey it's 50 years since civil rights and black people still make up the large population of criminals just like [those] organizations told us. Obviously it's a consequence of giving them all those rights and not say a lingering statistic that is a complex result of old cultural norms still be ingrained in the social practices of contemporary society.
The highest performing researchers will be given positions and grants regardless of their gender. If there are then slots or scholarships or grants for women without respect to their performance, it will increase the amount of research done by women but lower its average quality.
Again that's taking some pretty hefty jumps. Why not expect the opposite? With a history of sexual bias that would mean that qualified women have missed out because of their gender, meaning that men have gotten the job who were less qualified which means the overrepresentation of men is what reduces the overall quality of the field. Increasing the amount of women would serve to balance this and actually increase the average.
Let's transpose this to a different time: "Oh well no black person has ever gone to [Insert upper level educational facility named after a vine here] so while we're increasing the number of black students it's actually decreasing our schools overall intelligence. All of our non-black students have 5 generations of attendance and a legacy of expectation and support systems in place and years of grooming and a culture where this is normal, our black students have none of that, and all except the three who earned presidential scholarships are looked upon as tokens anyway (they just have state minority scholarships) but hey maybe the opposition is right that we should ignore when they complain about racial bias. It's their fault."
speaking of idiotic statements
The paper was not rejected because of one reviewer. It's standard to have THREE reviewers, this is one guy out of three. Additionally, it's the editor's call whether to accept or reject it. Typically that's based on the reviewers recommendation. However, the editor could and should have ignored that one reviewer and accepted it anyway. Actually, the AE should have deleted the review and said to the authors "Sorry, the third reviewer never turned in his review, sending it out for a different reviewer." The AE could have accepted it even if all three reviewers had insightful criticisms of the paper and said it was horrible.
In other words, the rejection for publication could have nothing to do with that one review, it was not rejected due to that review, it was rejected by the editor who showed poor judgement in accepting the sexist review.
While i recognize the fact that typically it's a standard of three reviewers, FTFA
A paper on gender bias in academia was recently rejected by an academic journal, whose reviewer told the two female authors to "find one or two male biologists to work with" if they wanted to get their work published.
That work, by the way, was a scientific survey of how and why men in academia tend to publish more papers, and in more prestigious academic journals, than women.
and then later
The PLOS journal rejected their paper with a single, anonymous review.
Perhaps this paper has a nonstandard single reviewer system but neither the source article or the cited twitter account details this, imo, minute and academic point beyond the above quotes