I was mistaken about the peer review, as _Social Text_ was not peer-reviewed. The article I was remembering discusses how Sokal refused to make the edits reque

I was mistaken about the peer review, as _Social Text_ was not peer-reviewed. The article I was remembering discusses how Sokal refused to make the edits requested by _Social Text_'s editors. [0] > Having established an interest in Sokal's article, we did > ask him informally to revise the piece. We requested him (a) > to excise a good deal of the philosophical speculation and > (b) to excise most of his footnotes. Sokal seemed resistant > to any revisions, and indeed insisted on retaining almost > all of his footnotes and bibliographic apparatus on the > grounds that his peers, in science, expected extensive > documentation of this sort. Judging from his response, it > was clear that his article would appear as is, or not at > all. At this point, Sokal was designated as a "difficult, > uncooperative author," a category well known to journal > editors. We judged his article too much trouble to publish, > not yet on the reject pile, perhaps of sufficient interest > to readers if published in the company of related articles. http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9607/mst.html http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9607/mst.html