The first issue I see: That journal is on some sort of warning list, for predatory practicies. A red flag, but not disqualifying. more on this later
Second issue: Scientific papers are structured into abstract, science with methodology, and finally the citations. But there’s no science here. That part doesn’t exist in this paper.
Third issue, citation part doesn’t hold to the industry standard. In scientific papers you’re expected to cite verifiable, high quality sources, preferably form already peer reviewed papers. Government and education institutions are also acceptable - so basically everything from .edu and .gov domains is okay. Books from people holding scientific degree in relevant field is also fine.
But what the fuck is study.com? or www.saderlaw.com? These are not acceptable sources, not peer reviewed, and if the journal were doing actual peer review, this would not go through.
the most painful is that you can actually attack the given problem with hard statistical approach - this isn’t history where you have no precise data and what you have is prone for multiple different interpretations. Here, you can plot age to fertility chart (this is pretty well researched area) and do age-attractiveness survey where you take representative group of males and ask them to rate women of different group ages (I imagine data for that exists as well). I’d expect chart of attractiveness and chart of female fertility to heavily overlap - because natural selection promotes fertile partners.
Now with this, you could compare results of surveys for different cultures and how they skew perception of age-attraction to either prove or disprove the initial thesis (that western civilization promotes sexualization of pre puberty females)
But nothing like that has been provided. Only very questionable work, citing questionable sources, in questionable journal
IMO the warning list if found this journal on, is correct, they don’t do strict peer review and publish everything the client pays them to publish.
As you can see debunking the shit takes more effort than posting it in the first place, so don’t expect me to delve into this deeper.
Sure, let’s hear it. Why is the second link unacceptable? Additionally, what would be acceptable as evidence in this context?
The first issue I see: That journal is on some sort of warning list, for predatory practicies. A red flag, but not disqualifying. more on this later
Second issue: Scientific papers are structured into abstract, science with methodology, and finally the citations. But there’s no science here. That part doesn’t exist in this paper.
Third issue, citation part doesn’t hold to the industry standard. In scientific papers you’re expected to cite verifiable, high quality sources, preferably form already peer reviewed papers. Government and education institutions are also acceptable - so basically everything from .edu and .gov domains is okay. Books from people holding scientific degree in relevant field is also fine.
But what the fuck is study.com? or www.saderlaw.com? These are not acceptable sources, not peer reviewed, and if the journal were doing actual peer review, this would not go through.
the most painful is that you can actually attack the given problem with hard statistical approach - this isn’t history where you have no precise data and what you have is prone for multiple different interpretations. Here, you can plot age to fertility chart (this is pretty well researched area) and do age-attractiveness survey where you take representative group of males and ask them to rate women of different group ages (I imagine data for that exists as well). I’d expect chart of attractiveness and chart of female fertility to heavily overlap - because natural selection promotes fertile partners.
Now with this, you could compare results of surveys for different cultures and how they skew perception of age-attraction to either prove or disprove the initial thesis (that western civilization promotes sexualization of pre puberty females)
But nothing like that has been provided. Only very questionable work, citing questionable sources, in questionable journal
IMO the warning list if found this journal on, is correct, they don’t do strict peer review and publish everything the client pays them to publish.
As you can see debunking the shit takes more effort than posting it in the first place, so don’t expect me to delve into this deeper.
You have made a good point. I respect the response and concede the argument.