> Well, it's explicitly giving an advantage to submissions that engage with these diversity goals.
I honestly don’t understand your problem with this.
Historically, the majority of humanity was not a part of social science study. For example, economics has a tradition of drawing conclusions about the labor market based on data only on American white males (literally). This has been changing and it reveals blind spots in our previous understanding of the economy.
All that this policy change seems to be doing is encourage researchers in social psychology to work with a wider subpopulation than, for example, American undergraduates aged 18 to 22. It does not mandate anywhere what their findings should be.
I feel like you didn't read my comment. It contained:
> Favoring research of understudied populations makes a lot of sense and is necessary.
Which is in direct agreement with what you wrote in response.
> Favoring researchers based on their own personal diversity metrics is controversial.
But it also acknowledges there are aspects others may find controversial. The policy extends beyond sample selection and populations addressed in research, and e.g. favors researchers from diverse backgrounds. Personally, I think this is useful (more perspectives good; more inclusion in science good)-- within reason.
> Favoring research whose findings support specific diversity-related desired outcomes is dangerous (and the policy may do this in practice).
And it points out that if interpretation of the policy extends too far, that by only allowing certain types of outcome to publish, it could create distortions. The worry is that the latter criteria in the policy could reach here.
If you can publish research that has a finding that supports "A", but cannot publish research that supports "!A", then the only published research will say "A", whether or not "A", "!A", or something else entirely are true.
Even modest publication biases can dwarf true effect sizes in social research, and can create the illusion of consistent effects and scientific consensus when neither actually exists.
That's great, because my comment never assumed the existence of neutral review.
It merely pointed out that some kinds of DEI input to review are almost certainly helpful to advancing science (e.g. ensuring we get reasonable samples in social research); some are controversial (e.g. favoring diverse researcher groups); and some are almost certainly harmful (e.g. determining whether the research can be published based on whether it makes a pro-DEI finding).
Favoring research of understudied populations makes a lot of sense and is necessary.
Favoring researchers based on their own personal diversity metrics is controversial.
Favoring research whose findings support specific diversity-related desired outcomes is dangerous (and the policy may do this in practice).