which it wasn't. we're discussing scientific culture.
OP is pointing out a problem.
and now you say always and everywhere which is a strong claim. happens sometimes, ok. happens a lot, okay.
but "everywhere", "always"?
also it would be genuinely interesting to get pointers on meta research, evidence based statements about the trustworthiness of X as in scientists, institutions, papers, publishers, ...
I've argued on the internet enough to know where the "source?" discussion goes. Nipping bad faith arguments in the bud is a good idea, in general, and the best way to do that is to call the argument out for what it is.
It's also a good idea not to try to start them, but I don't control your behavior. Doubling down on your bad faith arguments is not a good look, either.
If you would like to have a discussion with long-form essays and cited sources, start by bringing some. In other words, if you want other people to put in effort, put some in first.
Here's my anecdata: I have submitted 6 papers for review and had 7 reviewers request a citation of one sort or another.
I come from a place where of all "information sources" scholar.google.com is still one of the slightly more trustworthy ones. the review process has its quirks, but it's better than no peer review at all.
in that world, where academic peer reviews appears to be a last "bastion" of reliability, a statement like the one that started this thread is something I feel the urge to "nib the bud".
if we were in a room I'd suggest we have beer of sorts and a good laugh about the irony of this thread.
I think you need to be careful to not initiate the very rhetoric game you want to fight. if your top level statement had been your anecdata, and maybe a question about the pervasiveness of this phenomenon and if there is nuance? like, if the journal asks an expert in the field about a review and they do know relevant papers, maybe indeed some of their own, a citation request may be just fine?
I'd said nothing. just nothing.
but the thread starter overgeneralized the missing trustworthiness of the scientific peer process as a whole.
and there I dared to ask: is that really so? should we stop trusting published science, in general, and "do our own research" ;-)
do you see, where I come from? do you see the irony of this thread?
