The joke of academic journals

[JasperL]

Perhaps to those who don't know the academy or who pretend they know, or those in denial, you're correct

Snobbery about the journal's level doesn't diminish the purpose and point, which is all that matters.

The stupid exercise that made the academy look stupid. You're right that is ironic.

No, it's ironic that you're using a dumb piece of performance art to try to prove.....something about lack of standards in "the academy."

It doesn't work that way, any more than I can recognize that your profile says you're from NJ, and then make broad, sweeping conclusions about the people of New Jersey by citing you, and maybe 10 other people from NJ that I cherry pick out of the population of the entire state.

 

[JasperL]

The hope was the hoax would get the academy to be introspective about what they publish, but you're right, that didn't happen.

I'm just wondering how you determined this. Who or what in the academy (which is a hopelessly undefined broad term) did you review pre and post dumb exercise? Who is "they" and what did "they" publish? How many journals did you review? Out of what total? How did you select your sample, or did you examine all 30,000 or so peer-reviewed journals. That would be a lot of work! How did you determine if your sample (I assume) of publications were sufficiently "introspective" pre and post and/or determine if "they" were more or less "introspective" post dumb exercise versus pre?

 

[Underestimated]

No, it's ironic that you're using a dumb piece of performance art to try to prove.....something about lack of standards in "the academy."

Sokal and these three pointed out the lack of standards in the academy 20 years apart. What Sokal did and these three academics did pointed to the same thing. That's not irony.

It doesn't work that way, any more than I can recognize that your profile says you're from NJ, and then make broad, sweeping conclusions about the people of New Jersey by citing you, and maybe 10 other people from NJ that I cherry pick out of the population of the entire state.

This isn't a broad brush issue. This is a very pointed issue to point out a flaw. No one likes being told their processes are flawed yet the intelligent thing to do is to review the process, validate or invalidate the flaw based on the evidence, and rectify the flaw if it is indeed a flaw. What these journals did was the opposite, which is the irony. They rebuked the flaw, and made their author review policy more stringent. You cannot see that as being an issue, then you're defending the indefensible. Can't agree to even a portion of what I'm saying, then I really can't break it down any simpler and anything more I'd say would just be repetition.

 

[Underestimated]

I'm just wondering how you determined this. Who or what in the academy (which is a hopelessly undefined broad term) did you review pre and post dumb exercise? Who is "they" and what did "they" publish? How many journals did you review? Out of what total? How did you select your sample, or did you examine all 30,000 or so peer-reviewed journals. That would be a lot of work! How did you determine if your sample (I assume) of publications were sufficiently "introspective" pre and post and/or determine if "they" were more or less "introspective" post dumb exercise versus pre?

You asked the same question in your post #6 and answered the question yourself, which I pointed out in my post #7. Please review what you yourself stated.

 

[bomberfox]

Fallacy of hasty generalization big whoops on Rogan’s part.

 

[Underestimated]

Fallacy of hasty generalization big whoops on Rogan’s part.

True if it were a debate, but I see the format of what is shown as more of a casual discussion.

 

[JasperL]

Sokal and these three pointed out the lack of standards in the academy 20 years apart. What Sokal did and these three academics did pointed to the same thing. That's not irony.

The exercise doesn't demonstrate a 'lack of standards' in the 'academy.' At best the exercise demonstrated a 'lack of standards' in a few journals in the very narrow fields related to the papers. That's what the EVIDENCE can demonstrate. You cannot use evidence of dodgy papers accepted in "grievance" studies to condemn the field of American history, for example, which is also part of the 'academy.' No journal focused on American history was involved in this exercise in any way, so how can you condemn that field? You cannot except stupidly and ignorantly.

I've already agreed with you about the problem demonstrated by Sokal - he was a famous name, and was published largely because of that, in a non-peer reviewed journal. That problem is present in peer-reviewed journals, even where the authors are supposedly hidden. Their work is often well known before submission, because it's been shopped to various universities and/or conferences to get feedback before submission. The people they'd ask for feedback are often the reviewers, or attended the conference session.

But the exercise doesn't indict the 'academy' because the exercise doesn't involve anything approaching 'the academy' but only a tiny segment of that whole. Journal X in field Y simply cannot be condemned because Journal A in field B accepted a paper. And in the larger exercise, about as many papers were rejected as accepted, and several were still under review, so why don't the journals who rejected these hoaxes 'prove' that the field overall is appropriately skeptical? You ignore those to focus on those accepted, and then indict them all, even though several journals didn't publish the hoaxes. How does that work? How do you condemn Journal C in field B that rejected the hoax paper because Journal A in the same field accepted a different paper?

This isn't a broad brush issue. This is a very pointed issue to point out a flaw. No one likes being told their processes are flawed yet the intelligent thing to do is to review the process, validate or invalidate the flaw based on the evidence, and rectify the flaw if it is indeed a flaw. What these journals did was the opposite, which is the irony. They rebuked the flaw, and made their author review policy more stringent. You cannot see that as being an issue, then you're defending the indefensible. Can't agree to even a portion of what I'm saying, then I really can't break it down any simpler and anything more I'd say would just be repetition.

It is - you're making sweeping conclusions about "the academy." It's obviously a bullshit conclusion.

And as I said on the front end, sure, peer review has problems!!!!!!!@!@!@!@!@ We agree on that. Of course it does and I outlined a few of them. The task then is to identify a better system. Well, what do you suggest? How should they 'rectify the flaw?' They have flawed human beings reviewing papers by their peers. What is the alternative to that inherent flaw? Do away with peer review and leave the decisions to a single editor? How will that make things better? If not that, what? Another problem is roughly 30,000 peer reviewed journals and many more that are not peer reviewed publish 100s of thousands of articles per year. What system provides a reasonable guarantee that they are all of the highest caliber? Nothing, it's not even a reasonable goal, so what should the goal be? Who knows, because you're not even making an argument.

Several journals rejected the hoaxes. Their process worked. So how should they change a process that worked and identified the papers as lacking sufficient rigor? Who the hell knows? You aren't doing anything but condemning all of "the academy" for the failures of a few journals in a tiny slice of 'the academy.'

 

[JasperL]

You asked the same question in your post #6 and answered the question yourself, which I pointed out in my post #7. Please review what you yourself stated.

I didn't answer the question because the reality is you haven't a clue about 'the academy' and how 'introspective' the broader academy is or is not, and you didn't review anything but a stupid exercise that confirmed your priors, and from that tiny set of anecdotes in a tiny slice of the 'academy' making sweeping and illegitimate conclusions.

 

[bomberfox]

True if it were a debate, but I see the format of what is shown as more of a casual discussion.

Its true even in a discussion since you are canning an entire apparatus that works most of the time.

 

[Underestimated]

The exercise doesn't demonstrate a 'lack of standards' in the 'academy.'

Then I can't help you understand the purpose any clearer as in both instances, as both times the authors stated that was their purpose. So the basis of your disbelief is disbelief. Anything else I say would be repetitive.

It is - you're making sweeping conclusions about "the academy." It's obviously a bullshit conclusion.

Yet more disbelief not based on factual occurrences or what actually happened, as well as the authors states narrow statements. I feel as though I'm having a discussion with an evangelist based on belief rather than actual facts.

IAnd as I said on the front end, sure, peer review has problems!!!!!!!@!@!@!@!@ We agree on that.

Good. Then let us leave the conversation on an agreement and not quibble over nonsensical details.

Of course it does and I outlined a few of them. The task then is to identify a better system. Well, what do you suggest? How should they 'rectify the flaw?' They have flawed human beings reviewing papers by their peers. What is the alternative to that inherent flaw? Do away with peer review and leave the decisions to a single editor? How will that make things better? If not that, what? Another problem is roughly 30,000 peer reviewed journals and many more publish 100s of thousands of articles per year. What system provides a reasonable guarantee that they are all of the highest caliber? Nothing, it's not even a reasonable goal, so what should the goal be? Who knows, because you're not even making an argument.

I don't think there needs to be a better system. I'm not ready to throw away what has worked for hundreds of years in one form or another, because there may be flaws that are causing problems within academia. My solution to this is a review and intervention where flaws exist. An improvement of the existing system is reasonable in my subjective view. A reaffirmation of meritocracy based not on political beliefs, social ideals or critical race theory (though, some of social sciences and humanities delve into those subjects), in order to put forth valid concepts which are observable and verifiable in the pursuit of truth, not ideology.

Several journals rejected the hoaxes. Their process worked. So how should they change a process that worked and identified the papers as lacking sufficient rigor? Who the hell knows? You aren't doing anything but condemning all of "the academy" for the failures of a few journals in a tiny slice of 'the academy.'

Several of the journals were indeed rejected. The hoax wasn't a total success in it's conclusion in any way, yet I continue to identify the journal failures as places where improvement must be made. When any institution academic or otherwise is unwilling to identify failures not based on process or procedure but on ideology, belief or other esoteric concepts they fail not only themselves but those who conform to those flaws by following and writing for those journals.

 

[Underestimated]

I didn't answer the question because the reality is you haven't a clue about 'the academy' and how 'introspective' the broader academy is or is not, and you didn't review anything but a stupid exercise that confirmed your priors, and from that tiny set of anecdotes in a tiny slice of the 'academy' making sweeping and illegitimate conclusions.

I'm not speaking of the broader academy, my post was specifically about social sciences and humanities. You've levied a false assumption based on nothing I've provided. When I state "the academy" I'm using it in the context and limitations of this hoax. You have broadened it out for your own purposes. You're accusations are also false, as you have no clue of my background, education or my work or my interests. Therefore assigning intent to what my posts as well as my competency or lack thereof is rubbish. You WANT this to be about a broad issue, and it's not, for if it is not a broad issue you have no argument. That is called a strawman.

 

[Underestimated]

Its true even in a discussion since you are canning an entire apparatus that works most of the time.

In a casual conversation no one cares about fallacy.

 

[JasperL]

Then I can't help you understand the purpose any clearer as in both instances, as both times the authors stated that was their purpose. So the basis of your disbelief is disbelief. Anything else I say would be repetitive.

No, I explained the basis of my disbelief in detail. You're unable to have an honest debate and address the points I made. Here you divert to their "purpose" but the "purpose" isn't relevant to what the EVIDENCE demonstrates.

It's true that you asserting your conclusions is repetitive. What I would hope you could do is back them up, but you cannot because your conclusions are indefensible on the merits. It's really that simple, which is why you don't even make an attempt.

Yet more disbelief not based on factual occurrences or what actually happened, as well as the authors states narrow statements. I feel as though I'm having a discussion with an evangelist based on belief rather than actual facts.

What 'actual facts' did I get wrong?

Good. Then let us leave the conversation on an agreement and not quibble over nonsensical details.

Condemning the 'academy' by pointing out that there is a problem with peer review, like there's a problem with ANY CONCEIVABLE ALTERNATIVE, is not a nonsensical detail.

I don't think there needs to be a better system. I'm not ready to throw away what has worked for hundreds of years in one form or another, because there may be flaws that are causing problems within academia. My solution to this is a review and intervention where flaws exist. An improvement of the existing system is reasonable in my subjective view. A reaffirmation of meritocracy based not on political beliefs, social ideals or critical race theory (though, some of social sciences and humanities delve into those subjects), in order to put forth valid concepts which are observable and verifiable in the pursuit of truth, not ideology.

That's a lot of words to say nothing at all. That could the abstract of a hoax paper!

Several of the journals were indeed rejected. The hoax wasn't a total success in it's conclusion in any way, yet I continue to identify the journal failures as places where improvement must be made. When any institution academic or otherwise is unwilling to identify failures not based on process or procedure but on ideology, belief or other esoteric concepts they fail not only themselves but those who conform to those flaws by following and writing for those journals.

Now you've completely abandoned the indictment of the entire 'the academy' to put the focus where it should be, and what the evidence can demonstrate, on those particular journals and perhaps those narrow fields. Great! That's where the evidence points us, if anywhere. That was my point from post 1 on this thread. We appear to now agree!

 

[Underestimated]

No, I explained the basis of my disbelief in detail. You're unable to have an honest debate and address the points I made.

I'm going to stop here. Not only have I been honest I've provided details about the narrow scope of my discussion points. Your actions by accusation based on nothing, you're belief contrary to facts and statements by both the 1996 and 2019 hoaxes are baseless. If you just want to win debate points by accusation and deriving my intent and educational competency by making it up, then you've succeeded.

Review my prior comments. I have nothing else new to add.

 

[JasperL]

I'm not speaking of the broader academy, my post was specifically about social sciences and humanities. You've levied a false assumption based on nothing I've provided. When I state "the academy" I'm using it in the context and limitations of this hoax. You have broadened it out for your own purposes. You're accusations are also false, as you have no clue of my background, education or my work or my interests. Therefore assigning intent to what my posts as well as my competency or lack thereof is rubbish. You WANT this to be about a broad issue, and it's not, for if it is not a broad issue you have no argument. That is called a strawman.

LOL. You:
"The hope was the hoax would get the academy to be introspective about what they publish, but you're right, that didn't happen."
"Sokal and these three pointed out the lack of standards in the academy 20 years apart."
"Perhaps to those who don't know the academy or who pretend they know, or those in denial, you're correct"
"The basic purpose was to prove to the academy papers could and would be written and published if a preconceived conclusion aligned with the political or social construct. The hope was, by executing a successful hoax, the academy would question their stance and position, but they did the opposite."

I'll quit here when you can't even be honest about what you're doing throughout this thread. Social sciences and humanities covers at least a dozen major fields, such as history, English, foreign language, religion, philosophy, economics, anthropology, psychology, law, geography, and more, and within those dozen or more huge fields are I'm sure many dozens of minor specialities. The exercise addressed a tiny slice of "the academy" however you've defined it. It's bullshit. And I haven't broadened it for my purposes, but because YOU are making sweeping generalizations about "the academy" from an exercise that involved only a tiny slice. That was YOUR doing, and I'm pointing out it's intellectual crap. If you'd limited your comments to, say, 'grievance studies' or post-modernism or something similar, that's an entirely different discussion. You didn't do that. The fault is yours that you're getting called out for your crap arguments.

 

[JasperL]

I'm going to stop here. Not only have I been honest I've provided details about the narrow scope of my discussion points. Your actions by accusation based on nothing, you're belief contrary to facts and statements by both the 1996 and 2019 hoaxes are baseless. If you just want to win debate points by accusation and deriving my intent and educational competency by making it up, then you've succeeded.

Review my prior comments. I have nothing else new to add.

You repeatedly snipped my comments and didn't address the core argument. That's a dishonest way to debate. And I didn't just accuse you, I explained myself in detail. One is a form of ad hominem attack, but I attacked your arguments on the merits, which is more than mere accusation.

 

[Underestimated]

I'll quit here when you can't even be honest about what you're doing throughout this thread.

What am I doing? You seem hell bent on assigning intent, so please, read my mind and tell me what I'm doing. Your posts and your views show complete lack of education and integrity. My statement is the same as both hoaxster groups. You cannot refute it, only "believe" it is not so. I was just struck by the thought I'm conversing with a science denier and possible flat earther. Thanks for showing me your lack of understanding.

 

[Underestimated]

You repeatedly snipped my comments and didn't address the core argument. That's a dishonest way to debate. And I didn't just accuse you, I explained myself in detail. One is a form of ad hominem attack, but I attacked your arguments on the merits, which is more than mere accusation.

The core is the statement I provided in the original post. You've provided nothing to dispute that. To call it an argument is ludicrous. This is me providing data and you baselessly stating your disbelief. Perhaps bringing something factual to the table is appropos.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The hope was the hoax would get the academy to be introspective about what they publish, but you're right, that didn't happen.

I have no idea whether this is true or not--and neither do you. But if it is true, then presumably it's true because the stunt at the center of this thread made a very questionable and nebulous point. It's difficult to see what is supposed to be forceful about it, or even exactly what "it" is.

If you are aware of the Sokal paper, he was not fired to my knowledge, and neither has Peter Boghossian. I'm sure it would depend on the institution.

Author of recent academic hoax faces disciplinary action by Portland State

Author of a recent academic scam faces disciplinary action by Portland State, for failing to alert his research review board before hoodwinking journal editors with outrageous articles. Many say he's guilty of bad form, but did he commit misconduct?

www.insidehighered.com

Admittedly, me getting actually fired for such a thing would be rather extreme. But it's possible. More likely would be that I'd just get a tongue lashing delivered from my department head and a strongly-worded letter from a faculty senate committee (which, rumor has it, is what happened to Sokal). But I don't want any of that either, and it's certainly not compensated by satisfying some rando on the internet whose claims are highly suspect and arguments specious.

I provided you with a link as an example of both, which defines what I meant.

Doesn't really clarify. Is the journal Nous "on the same level" as your example? What about Mind? What about Cognitive Computation? How about the Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics? Are articles apt to appear in these journals to count as "math/science" papers? What about the ones that appear only in the latter two?

You stated: " The conclusions are not outlandish--they reinforce what has already been accepted. " I can only understand how this references the hoax papers, and not the fictional paper you could write but have not called " "Light Rays Captured by Uranus: A Novel Proof of Minkowski's Metric Where the Sun Doesn't Shine." If I mistook the reference, then discard my comment.

No, you have the reference right, but the direction of what reinforces what wrong.

You'll need to be more specific as there are 20 papers.

Why would I need to be? I just found the text of one of the papers and went to my library and checked a couple of the references. They came up in the databases in journals that I recognize.

But that doesn't have anything to do with my argument in the first place, so I'm not sure what you're on about. My initial argument never made any claims about these papers being reinforced by anything at all, a fortiori any legitimate and reliable source. I provided a way to find some examples as a courtesy to you, since you asked about it.

Incorrect. The paper was accepted but not yet published as the journal Affilia is a quarterly.

That's not what the authors said in their interview with Rogan--they said both tries with Mein Kampf editing were not accepted.

See above comment.

The "above comment" is not a reply to the point at hand. Look, here's a famous bad-sounding quote:

"Kill them all, God will sort them out."

I'll change three words:

"Call them all, we will help them out."

Suddenly the meaning is radically different. My point was that the authors say that their second attempt at using sentences from Mein Kampf was more extreme than just substituting "white males" for instances of "Jews." Without knowing what they did, it's hard to say that the whole "Mein Kampf" thing amounts to, well, anything.

You have not provided any evidence that any of the conclusions by the hoax papers were legitimate.

Again, why should I need to? I never said they are. I said merely that they echo and reinforce points that are already known to be sound. To cash that out a little more perspicaciously, I'd say that means the conclusions are relevant to points already known to be sound, the conclusions are logically consistent with those points, and resemble or reflect them in some way and to some extent.

Again, it matters. What is consistent with one claim may not be consistent with the other.

When I requested you provide some of these conclusions "that are already known not to be nonsense" you failed to provide them and claimed it a strawman.

Where did you ask me to provide some "conclusions" that are already known not to be nonsense?

 

[JasperL]

What am I doing? You seem hell bent on assigning intent, so please, read my mind and tell me what I'm doing. Your posts and your views show complete lack of education and integrity. My statement is the same as both hoaxster groups. You cannot refute it, only "believe" it is not so. I was just struck by the thought I'm conversing with a science denier and possible flat earther. Thanks for showing me your lack of understanding.

I asked you how you define 'the academy.' In the same post, I said my understanding of 'the academy' is, "the 'academy' as I understand the term - the broad academic research community...." which you then agreed with - said I'd answered my own question - "well done." Now you're suggesting you didn't mean "the academy' at all, but that tiny slice of "the academy" that was involved in the exercise. Well, if you didn't mean the broad "the academy" don't use that term repeatedly without defining it, and demand we understand you to mean something entirely different. I guess I made the mistake of reading your words and assuming you meant what you typed. My sincere apologies for not assuming you meant something only you can define in your own head but didn't share with us!!

And your broad meaning was clear throughout, such as with this comment: "I am pointing out that academia has been polluted and much of the humanities publications are what you already said, "dog shit"" Of course the exercise proves nothing about "academia" or even "humanities" at all, much less "much of" anything, including the no doubt hundreds if not thousands of publications within the broad discipline of "humanities." The exercise proves something about a half dozen publications in a tiny slice of 'humanities.' That's it. The end. About as many that published the hoaxes rejected the hoaxes, so you can't even conclude anything about those narrow disciplines from that exercise - only about what those 6 publications did.

Finally, if you want to quote the 'hoaxter groups' do it. I've looked and they didn't make broad brush conclusions about 'the academy' that I saw, but I don't know what quotes you're referring to since I cannot read your mind and you haven't produced those quotes on this thread.

 

[JasperL]

The core is the statement I provided in the original post. You've provided nothing to dispute that. To call it an argument is ludicrous. This is me providing data and you baselessly stating your disbelief. Perhaps bringing something factual to the table is appropos.

Here's your statement in the OP: "I applaud them for making a mockery of academic journals, as these peer reviewed papers are generally worthless gibberish meant to stroke other academic's ego's for their career progress. That legitimate published journals rival the hoaxes and even surpass them demolishes any legitimacy these peer reviewed papers had."

Those are very broad statements, and the exercise didn't show any of that beyond that handful of 'academic journals' that published the hoaxes. Other 'academic journals weren't made a mockery of because they rejected the hoaxes. Others hadn't decided. Roughly 28,000 minus 6, or 27,994, academic journals didn't act on the hoaxes at all, because they didn't get hoax submissions, or rejected the hoaxes, and so the exercise cannot possibly make a mockery of them.

 

[nota bene]

The core is the statement I provided in the original post. You've provided nothing to dispute that. To call it an argument is ludicrous. This is me providing data and you baselessly stating your disbelief. Perhaps bringing something factual to the table is appropos.

If this is all you got out of his posts, I respectfully suggest that you go back and reread them.

 

[dixon01767]

I have to second everything Visbek said. The journals in which these papers were published aren't exactly top-of-the-heap. Beyond that, however, while the titles of these papers are apparently humorous out of context, the conclusions they claim are all consistent with views and theories that have already been proven.

What "proven" theory was the below consistent with.

( "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon" )

Such theories, rarely if ever are "proven" in any literal sense.

 

[ashurbanipal]

What "proven" theory was the below consistent with.

( "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon" )

First, I have to admit that this paper looks a bit more ridiculous, and if there is a valid point lurking here, it's that this editor should have suspected a prank. However, its conclusions are consistent with Foucault's analysis of heteronormativity (a term he did not coin, IIRC)--and specifically the claim that heterosexual men attempt to enforce a regime of acceptable sexual behavior.

I suppose technically, its conclusions are consistent with all sorts of other theories, like General Relativity or Plate Tectonics, but I know what you mean to ask.

Such theories, rarely if ever are "proven" in any literal sense.

Sure. If you want to be technical, no theory about the actual world could ever be proven. I used to be a bit more uptight about uses of the words "proof" and "prove." But I think the ones under discussion have been given an adequate level of support so as to be accepted by reasonable people--which is what I think most people mean when they use the words "proof" and "prove."

 

[P_T]

Look at controlled Fusion Electrical Generation and you get super high pressure Plasma. Look at a Black hole and you get super high pressure Plasma Jets and Physics broken down into the most undignified gravity of Elemental soup-less particles .