The joke of academic journals

[Underestimated]

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.

Agreed, it depends on the person and if they feel strongly about something they may take risks. It's up to the individual and their perspective of the subject as well as the risk they are willing to take to make a point.

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?

It's certainly subjective with many journals. Depending on whether the journal is a math/science, or a physics or a social/humanities. I profess I do see journals in the social sciences at a lesser level, that is my bias and I acknowledge that, but I can say I don't differentiate between Melus versus The Cambridge Quarterly..

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.

Each effort was different, some references were legitimate others were entirely fictitious, and even the authors admit they were trying to provide conclusions the reviewers wanted to read and had a propensity for agreement.

"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.

A simplistic example doesn't encompass how the re-write of Mein Kampf was done, so while you're example provides a point, it doesn't apply in the case of the actual paper submitted. The purpose of the rewrite wasn't to change the meaning, it was the opposite, to keep the meaning yet change the target of the meaning.

Again, why should I need to? I never said they are.

That's fine. I'd ask then, what is the peer reviewers process and goal? Is it to verify the methodology and conclusion as being logical given the circumstances provided or is it deeper? If not then any logical hypothesis through conclusion are accepted regardless of how ludicrous or silly the subject. I disagree with that perspective, even in the humanities.

 

[Underestimated]

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.

I suggested this where? You keep asking the same question, I keep referring you to the same answer you provided four days ago.

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!!

I've only been talking about social sciences/humanities which is the source of this post. I'm glad we cleared that up.

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.

Agreed, it's not ALL academic journals but certainly some. As I've already admitted in a different reply to another poster, I'm certainly biased where the social sciences and humanities are concerned.

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.

They specifically did not make a broad brush conclusion, they were specific in the areas they published: gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography studies, race studies, sexuality studies, which I would consider social / humanities. They explain this in the second video in the original post.

 

[Underestimated]

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."

"these peer reviewed papers", specific to the one's which were both published and accepted (but not published). I did not say all academic journals or all peer reviewed papers, nor do I state this applies to all.

Those are very broad statements, and the exercise didn't show any of that beyond that handful of 'academic journals' that published the hoaxes.

As I stated, the authors and my support of the authors hoaxes were specifically about the papers which were published and accepted. No broadening of the subject matter, nor inclusion of other journals, papers in any other subjects were provided by me. Any broadening of the subject was your assumption.

 

[JasperL]

"these peer reviewed papers", specific to the one's which were both published and accepted (but not published). I did not say all academic journals or all peer reviewed papers, nor do I state this applies to all.

As I stated, the authors and my support of the authors hoaxes were specifically about the papers which were published and accepted. No broadening of the subject matter, nor inclusion of other journals, papers in any other subjects were provided by me. Any broadening of the subject was your assumption.

Right - I read the words you typed and 'assumed' you meant the plain meaning of words like "the academy" or "academia" or even "humanities" with no qualifiers, no limitations. Forgive me for 'assuming' basic literacy. My entire objection was to you broad-brushing all of academia, and I made that point a dozen times in different ways. You had a dozen opportunities to narrow your conclusions but you didn't. You could have simply agreed with me at any point, but you didn't.

I have no idea what your point is with this feeble attempt at gaslighting me might be, but it's a failure. Very strange that you attempted it.

 

[Fishking]

I didn't listen to the segment,

I didn't read past that, and I shouldn't. If you can't bother to listen then you shouldn't bother to write so much.

 

[Fishking]

It's not the system necessarily that is the problem, it's the lack of introspection. 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. They simply started verifying individuals. They did not want to question their pseudo-reality nor question their reinforcement echo chamber within their respective disciplines.

That's not even the best part. They sent some of their papers back because they weren't batshit crazy enough so they "fixed" some of their already made up batshit crazy stuff to take it to the next level.

 

[ecofarm]

There are a million peer review junk publishers that are happy to take money and provide a panel of former academics to rubber stamp it. If that's a revelation, the person has never used journal articles in an academic setting.

Do people believe it's somehow possible to hold all journals to some high official government standard and thus the literally thousands of them are entirely without garbage? What a stupid and ignorant strawman in attempt to discredit science.

College 101: Get your journal articles from good sources, the ones endorsed by the university and your professor. If one decides, instead, to present an asinine article from a junk publisher, one will fail the assignment and perhaps the class.

 

[JasperL]

I didn't read past that, and I shouldn't. If you can't bother to listen then you shouldn't bother to write so much.

What's the word count on "so much" given that the OP summarized the videos? Please let me know because I really care about your opinion on how many words I'm allowed to write without watching 30 minutes of video. Thanks in advance!!

 

[JasperL]

That's not even the best part. They sent some of their papers back because they weren't batshit crazy enough so they "fixed" some of their already made up batshit crazy stuff to take it to the next level.

The best part for me was some people looked at this exercise then condemned "academia" and "the academy" based on a few anecdotes. Hilarious!!

 

[Fishking]

What's the word count on "so much" given that the OP summarized the videos? Please let me know because I really care about your opinion on how many words I'm allowed to write without watching 30 minutes of video. Thanks in advance!!

0

 

[Fishking]

The best part for me was some people looked at this exercise then condemned "academia" and "the academy" based on a few anecdotes. Hilarious!!

So far as the humanities part of academia? Abso****inglutely.

 

[ecofarm]

So far as the humanities part of academia? Abso****inglutely.

How ignorant.

 

[MaryP]

During the lockdown I discovered Joe Rogan's podcast. I remember him from Newsradio back in the 90's and of course "Fear Factor". I perused his non-MMA and comedian catalog and found quite a few really interesting interviews. This is one of them. I've always been a bit of a cynic about peer reviewed journals touting academic papers. I understand how these papers are a needed vice in collegiate professor tenure as well as gaining grant money for specific disciplines. But no other podcast have I chuckled as much (maybe Bobcat Goldthwait was a close second). Basically these two characters decided to submit peer reviewed papers on absurd topics with clearly insane conclusions, and amazingly seven were published and one got an award ( "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon" ) They also pulled out parts of Mien Kampf and replaced words to correlate with intersectional feminism, also peer reviewed and published. 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.

Other peer reviewed and published papers by the hoaxters:
"Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding"
"Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use"
"An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant"

Here's the 26 minute interview with Rogan





Here's the background video about the three and why they did it

Thanks for the chuckles.
Rogan and these jokesters have their own obvious bone to pick, but the papers they wrote were hilarious.

 

[Fishking]

How ignorant.

Of course you'd think so.

 

[JasperL]

So far as the humanities part of academia? Abso****inglutely.

Really? And you know this how? It sure as hell isn't from an exercise involving a few accepted papers, and many more that were rejected outright or not accepted.

 

[JasperL]

0

OK, I see. Wait, I just broke your rule!! Sorry. Report me to the mods!

 

[JasperL]

Of course you'd think so.

No thinking required - it's self evident, if you're interested in actual evidence versus a childish exercise intended to reinforce some priors. I mean, it's actually quite stupid to look at a few anecdotes in a tiny slice of "the humanities" and condemn the broader "humanities" which describes study in language, religion, history, archaeology, anthropology, and more. You get this, right, and are trolling us? I hope so!!

 

[Fishking]

Really? And you know this how? It sure as hell isn't from an exercise involving a few accepted papers, and many more that were rejected outright or not accepted.

From the stupid shit that comes out of them that should garner ridicule instead of praise. If you're not aware, then you aren't paying attention.

 

[Fishking]

OK, I see. Wait, I just broke your rule!! Sorry. Report me to the mods!

What you should do is go away in embarrassment, but here you are...

 

[Fishking]

No thinking required

Correct. To operate in the humanities you must not think. Don't ever think.

 

[Underestimated]

Right - I read the words you typed and 'assumed' you meant the plain meaning of words like "the academy" or "academia" or even "humanities" with no qualifiers, no limitations. Forgive me for 'assuming' basic literacy. My entire objection was to you broad-brushing all of academia, and I made that point a dozen times in different ways. You had a dozen opportunities to narrow your conclusions but you didn't. You could have simply agreed with me at any point, but you didn't.

I have no idea what your point is with this feeble attempt at gaslighting me might be, but it's a failure. Very strange that you attempted it.

Pardon me, but why would I agree with you when your view and arguments were assuming a broad view when I specifically, multiple time brought this back to the Grievance Theory papers which were the subject of this thread? In post #7, I specifically provided the actual papers which this group wrote and referenced them over and over.

In your respond in your post #8 you stated "You're condemning all of academia" so the bad assumption with no help from me caused both a waste of time and a bad experience in what should have been a casual discussion about an obvious flaw in the humanities, which I pointed out in my post #13,

That probably won't happen. The humanities is where the issues are."

My post #20

It says something about social sciences and humanities, not dozens of fields."

My post #25
I reference in the last reply to ashurbanipal, the 2019 and 1996 Sokal hoaxes.

My post #28
Specific reference to Sokal hoax.

I'm not going to agree to a broad interpretation when I'm specifically talking and criticizing a narrow interpretation as I've done since the first post. This isn't gaslighting, it's your mistake making an assumption and wasting both our time and belligerence when I don't agree.

Now that I've pointed out multiple times how throughout this thread, my view was specific to these hoaxes, the purpose of those hoaxes, and the narrow scope in which I'm made criticisms about "the academy", does that change your perspective?

 

[Underestimated]

That's not even the best part. They sent some of their papers back because they weren't batshit crazy enough so they "fixed" some of their already made up batshit crazy stuff to take it to the next level.

Yes both Lindsay and Boghossian stated that each time the reviewers suggested changes, those suggestions in their view made the paper more outrageous.

 

[Underestimated]

There are a million peer review junk publishers that are happy to take money and provide a panel of former academics to rubber stamp it. If that's a revelation, the person has never used journal articles in an academic setting.

At the least they brought some levity and attention to what they saw as a problem. There are some legitimate subjects about gay, trans, feminist studies that are worthwhile and important, yet a rubber stamp of clearly outrageous articles allegedly based on real study cheapens and degrades. Turns out it doesn't matter, the hoax while successful at bring attention to the problem through ridicule didn't change the behavior or policies.

 

[Fishking]

There are a million peer review junk publishers that are happy to take money and provide a panel of former academics to rubber stamp it. If that's a revelation, the person has never used journal articles in an academic setting.

Where the ones they submitted to "junk publishers"? And if there are "junk publishers" that are part of the peer review process then shouldn't there be something in place that QCs and certifies who actually can be authorized to do such things in an official manner?

 

[JasperL]

Co....

If you're not going to quote the whole comment, move on by. It's dishonest to snip the meat of the comment.

"No thinking required - it's self evident, if you're interested in actual evidence versus a childish exercise intended to reinforce some priors. I mean, it's actually quite stupid to look at a few anecdotes in a tiny slice of "the humanities" and condemn the broader "humanities" which describes study in language, religion, history, archaeology, anthropology, and more. You get this, right, and are trolling us? I hope so!!"