User contributions for 2A02:C7E:14EC:AB00:185C:EFDD:7DAD:13E8

10 September 2022

• 01:5601:56, 10 September 2022 diff hist −283 Gerhard Meisenberg non-peer reviewed opinions written by journalists are not appropriate for discussing the work of a scientist. Tag: Reverted
• 01:5501:55, 10 September 2022 diff hist −112 Gerhard Meisenberg malformed edit Tag: Reverted
• 01:5501:55, 10 September 2022 diff hist −1,447 Gerhard Meisenberg The SPLC is not a scientific body and does not publish peer reviewed research, and so is not an appropriate body to cite for discussing the output/reputation of a scientist. Tags: Reverted references removed
• 01:5101:51, 10 September 2022 diff hist −2,930 Intelligence (journal) Politically charged opinion columns in newspapers are not appropriate citations for discussing the merits of a scientific journal. Newspapers are not peer reviewed outlets. Tag: Reverted
• 01:4901:49, 10 September 2022 diff hist −799 Personality and Individual Differences This isnt notable either; retractions are not uncommon and will have happened at most journals. The wikipedia page for most scientific journals doesnt mention attractions and highly cited papers, so im not sure why tis mentioned here. Tags: Reverted section blanking
• 01:4801:48, 10 September 2022 diff hist −872 Personality and Individual Differences Tnis isnt particularly notable. 1600 citations is not many for a scientific paper, most journals will have published hundreds of papers with more citations than this. Tags: Reverted section blanking
• 01:4501:45, 10 September 2022 diff hist −1,607 Heiner Rindermann Attending a conference is not a notable action for an academic, most will have attended dozens. Tags: Reverted references removed
• 01:4401:44, 10 September 2022 diff hist −14 Helmuth Nyborg malformed edit Tag: Reverted
• 01:4301:43, 10 September 2022 diff hist −262 Helmuth Nyborg Non peer-reviewed editorials by journalists in newspapers are not an appropriate source for criticising scientific research. Tags: Reverted references removed