Quote:
Originally Posted by kirant
That depends on what the publication was looking at. Was it looking at a difference between alleged and committed assaults on women? Or was it trying to use it to make a wide statement on society? Papers are extremely narrowly focused (my supervisor keeps rejecting mine on the basis that it's not specific enough...my title is entering 3 lines of text and it's still apparently generic in topic) and one looking at that sort of difference can constitute a publication on its own.
Alternatively, was it challenging a historical piece? Was it challenging an old set of data saying "our results say different"? There are a lot of ways to spin that information and not all of them are shoving on-male abuse under the rug.
The key thing to look at is the discussion and abstract sections...how is it using this information to back up a claim? What is it asserting with the data? A study between the difference of this and women-on-men violence via poll could easily be its own paper (and I've met professors who will do such a thing just to get more grant money...not all, but I've met some who would do it).
There's too little data for me to make a good judgement on whether it was good to request it to not be produced.
|
Yes, I didn't give enough and I've been up all night working on stuff. I'm exhausted. But from what I was told it was not a competent study and it was pulled because of the unbalanced questioning.