I was about to debunk some arguments then decided it was a waste of time, as the quality of methodology, and argument is too low to even bother poking holes in.
Sentences like this belong in a blog post or opinion piece, not in the methodology section of a peer reviewed paper.
“we painstakingly pored through hundreds of hours of podcasts content, dozens of pages of various content including blog posts/articles and career review.”
How a piece like this ends up in the frontiers of psychology journal, which had a decent impact factor, I do not know
It’s probably not an accident that the article was published during the SBF trial. My guess is that the journal editors are willing to overlook some methodological flaws in favor of getting a piece out while the topic was more prone to draw public opinion. I don’t know the relevant literature base—but I also surmise that if the “debate on dark personality traits in entrepreneurship” is indeed as “nascent” as claimed, then editors are relatively more likely to let pieces lacking in design rigor through.
I was about to debunk some arguments then decided it was a waste of time, as the quality of methodology, and argument is too low to even bother poking holes in.
Sentences like this belong in a blog post or opinion piece, not in the methodology section of a peer reviewed paper.
“we painstakingly pored through hundreds of hours of podcasts content, dozens of pages of various content including blog posts/articles and career review.”
How a piece like this ends up in the frontiers of psychology journal, which had a decent impact factor, I do not know
It’s probably not an accident that the article was published during the SBF trial. My guess is that the journal editors are willing to overlook some methodological flaws in favor of getting a piece out while the topic was more prone to draw public opinion. I don’t know the relevant literature base—but I also surmise that if the “debate on dark personality traits in entrepreneurship” is indeed as “nascent” as claimed, then editors are relatively more likely to let pieces lacking in design rigor through.