Venkatesh Athreya

[CPI (M) @cpimspeak]

Joint statement by the #Left parties condemning the #US bombing of #Iran

@MABABYCPIM @ComradeDRaja @Dipankar_cpiml

[Venkatesh Athreya @vbathreya]

@cpimspeak One of the most outstanding communist revolutionaries of India. Brilliant intellectual, deeply committed to fighting class exploitation and caste oppression! RED SALUTE!!

[Venkatesh Athreya @vbathreya]

@mit_caa STRONGLY CONDEMN THE ACTION OF THE MIT ADMINISTRATION DENYING PRAHLAD IYENGAR BASIC FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

[MIT Coalition for Palestine - Commentary @m1t_caa]

After public backlash against Prahlad's campus ban due to an article about the pro-Palestine movement, MIT pivoted to suspending Prahlad on charges that have been resolved as informal warnings in similar scenarios.

[Sitaram Yechury @SitaramYechury]

The solemnity of Eid-al-Adha is ruthlessly torn asunder as Israel intensifies its brutal genocidal assaults on Palestinians. With nearly 40K officially declared murdered and multiple numbers more buried unaccounted under the rubble the agonies are viciously worse than what the UN describes as “Hell on Earth”.
Halt this monstrosity now.
Prosecute Netanyahu for war crimes.
https://t.co/VomSYUO4V0

[Venkatesh Athreya @vbathreya]

@SpokespersonECI Finally! So, dear ECI, if this was all with you , why were you stonewalling and why did you impute motives to people seeking this information? Puzzling.

[VJR @vijaykarrao]

@ANI @narendramodi You being a PM it's such a shame for you to talk so cheaply and it doesn't fit for a PM to talk like this. It's utter disgrace to have you as a PM for INDIA.

[Manoj Arora @manoj_216]

Bulldozers is not a way to do justice in any civilised and democratic country.
How tough is this to understand?
And the Prime Minister of this great nation shows no regret, rather takes pride in running bulldozers without giving a chance for the impacted party to offer their side of the story.
A new low for India!

[Manoj Arora @manoj_216]

1. Even if the construction is illegal, there is a proper way it needs to be done. The family needs to get enough notice to resettle itself at an alternative place.
Have some empathy as a human.
2. Who was responsible for illegal construction? Only the family? No one from the government was aware of this illegal construction? Are they also punished?
3. Are all illegal constructions demolished? Or only of a specific community?

[CEO Reeves Musk @CEOReevesI1]

Want to say this: To any reasonable person, ECI's stand that they will publish the votes polled only along with the votes counted should be completely unacceptable. We need to be sure that all the votes polled have been accounted for, and how can we be sure if the votes polled

[T. Jayaraman @tjayaraman]

This is a problematic article for what it ignores and its blatant defence of the status quo:
1) It deals with the mechanics of peer-reviewing as if the mechanics is what is wrong with it. It ignores the central issue of bias and prejudice that reviewers have with respect to the perspectives and attitudes reflected in the content, and the origin, location and known opinions of the authors. Keeping authors anonymous to referees is not sufficient, as in sufficiently popular or sufficiently narrow work, the authors are often known to peers.
2) The real problem is the papers that your will never hear about, promising research nipped in the bud or condemned to obscurity, because they are rejected, or spun around in multiple review rounds, that only the most brave hearted authors will survive, in the prominent journals of the time. Editorial desk rejections occur before peer review, on lack of suitability -- with a single damning phrase or word, such as "not of interest", "inappropriate", "not sufficiently original", or simply " we cannot accept for publication", -- without feeling any need to justify their conclusion.
3) The problem begins therefore at the editorial desk itself, and to that extent, its more serious. Who knows what governs the opinions and decisions of the editors and editorial desk -- protecting the journal "reputation", "good" papers come from within a "club", some results are not to be challenged, some subjects or issues are "uninteresting." -- and which of these leads to the rejection of your paper?
4) The success of peer review is established in this essay only by what is published. What happens to what is rejected? The whole emphasis seems more publisher driven, to establish the credibility of published work and the journals that publish them. And the mechanical simplification of the review process.
5) What is striking is the strange view of science that the author has. Here is one: "In my opinion, reaching such agreement is important for science, which proceeds mainly through consensus." Really? Whatever happened to organised skepticism? What about debate? What about the path-breaking paper that turns against the "consensus" ? What about scientific revolutions? Consensus? Really? A one-sided statement that should Thomas Kuhn turn in his grave...
6) Following on this, the last para truly makes me fearful for the future. The author concludes: "Ultimately, I hope for a future in which all journals use the same core set of questions for specific study types and make all of their review reports public. I fear that a lack of standard practice in this area is delaying the progress of science."
Appearing on the pages of a journal owned by a publisher with more than 3000 journals, such suggestions are future sure fire killers of diversity.
7)Making the review reports public is not enough. Can rejected paper authors post their paper and review reports and the journal correspondence publicly without fear of retaliation? That is the real question.
One hopes that there will be more diversity, more journals with different policies, that the publishing monopolies are fragmented in the years to come, and that genuine "open access" takes off. Amen.

@KanitkarT @KevinClimate @JRBhatt60 @JMauskar @sciencebwoy @3rdworldnetwork @MadhuraFAS @SandipanBaksi @malakalnory @minalpathak1 @ysaheb @JPvanYpersele @JimSkeaIPCC @DianaUrge @chilledasad100 @n_thanki @harjeet11 @bforboseman @SpringerNature @ElsevierConnect

Structure peer review to make it more robust https://t.co/lS9A7sfiFg

[CPI (M) @cpimspeak]

Vote for Comrade Amra Ram in Sikar Lok Sabha Constituency...

[CPI (M) @cpimspeak]

CPI(M) Manifesto in Sign Language. Watch full video on Youtube

[CPI (M) @cpimspeak]

Safeguard Our Future: Defeat BJP for Permanent Jobs, End Contractualization!

[Sitaram Yechury @SitaramYechury]

These views of Finance Commission Chairman are atrocious.
Wealth is nothing but the monetisation of value created by the working people in production. This is appropriated by the exploiters. More wealthy people means wider inequalities & higher poverty levels.
BTW, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has written a book ‘The Price of Inequality’.

[Amitabh Dubey @dubeyamitabh]

Now anyone who votes for him is basically voting to enslave themselves.

[CPI(M) WEST BENGAL @CPIM_WESTBENGAL]

Here we go!
People's Manifesto is here!

#CPIMManifesto

[CPI (M) @cpimspeak]

We pledge to uphold the separation of religion from politics, fight for a law against hate speech and crimes, and scrap the CAA. #CPIMManifesto