Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
Thanks for asking.
It's a known flaw in academic publications that its assumption of widespread good-faith means that occasionally, and only with the right amount of citations, the right peers and a hefty amount of bad faith, you can slip in fraudulent papers. 

It is no surprise that it took them 10 months to do this, and they admit themselves that they couldn't get published until they started reading pre-existing work in the field and basing theirs off of it (which is how research is supposed to work), which they dubiously dub as "grievance studies".. which is a disrespectful, hand-waving dismissal of several fields at once. 
Another thing that irks me is the lack of control (not papers published to journals outside of the ""grievance"" field) 
the dishonesty (the claim that all seven journals are peer-reviewed (four of them), 
the claim that they are academic (two of them), 
the claim that they just dressed up Mein Kampf and got it published (the chapter was extensively rewritten such that a side-by-side comparison wouldn't show much similarity, it's about oppression in general, but by the Hoaxer's account you'd think it was straight up nazi diatribe that got published, but that's not the case at all)

Also the claim that the papers are inherently rubbish, which is true for their data, but that doesn't mean that they are automatically wrong. The arguments in some of these papers appear to be plausible and seem to draw on the relevant literature. 

I don't think the hoax was unethical, even though it was dishonest. But this is exactly how you build bad reputation in academia and how you are destroying your future chances of getting published.AKA the reason why a widespread assumption of not-fraud exists in the first place. It doesn't mean that bad papers don't get published, which they do all the time in every academic field, as even bad peers can build a circle. 

I think bergstrom put it best with:
"Peer review is simply not designed to detect fraud. It doesn’t need to be. Fraud is uncovered in due course, and severe professional consequences deter almost all such behavior. Nor is the peer-review process designed to weed out every crazy idea. Given the self-correcting nature of scholarship, it is far better to let through a few bad ideas than to publish only those that are so self-evident as to be without controversy."

So I'm not intent on congratulating 3 Ph.D.s for their academic misconduct that proved exactly nothing, except this time it's ~ p o l i t i c a l ~ because far-right anti-intellectuals don't understand anything about peer review and think these efforts prove "corruption" in the humanities. It's a yikes from me.
Reposted byneoraiderareyoubored

Don't be the product, buy the product!