week 10 response to Katherine Brookshire

I find this study to be no better than those regular publication in the 80s who could not get off the subject to the next fad diet. Making a fad diet from another country into a serious scientific study is not all that ethical in most ways. For me this is the equivalency of an ambulance chaser lawyer sitting in an ER hoping to prey on the next accident victims who pour through the doors.

This study smacks of that type of study. It is based on the ego and arrogance of the scholastic lowest common denominator of publish or perish. It does not matter what is published, just to make sure that the author finds a community interest topic and writes to the specific interests of the peers who will be reviewing the details.

If you as a professional academic want to have the most articles published, you best find out what those who do the reviewing want to see. The more you pander to that audience the more you will have your work published. More than a few times, as long as you make that board happy, it does not matter at all the information contained in the article. For me this is a pure hard-core waste of time, but at least it everyone involved is happy. Minus the waste of time since no real research is being done. which to me is an extreme waste of time and efforts. If you are not going to say something of importance and or groundbreaking, what is the point.

Unless Professor Plum is going to dive into this subject in depth, it is a pure ego trip.