6 ms·

> Well firstly, I don't why you're putting "academic" in quotation marks, it would be a wild assertion to try and claim these are anything other than academic

> Well firstly, I don't why you're putting "academic" in quotation marks, it would be a wild assertion to try and claim these are anything other than academic journals. Not really, given the miserable quality of the papers they publish. Maybe ‘newspaper‘ or ‘journal’ might be ok, but ‘academic journal‘ requires a certain amount of quality. > The problem with this article is that what it's methodology tests whether it's possible to get low quality papers into certain academic journals, but it's stated theory and conclusion are that academic journals are deliberately publishing bad science to push an agenda that this article calls "Grievance Studies". Academic journals publish papers deliberately. They don’t ‘accidentally’ publish bad papers, I can assure you that nobody accidentally clicks the ‘publish’ button. Whatever further agenda the article may or may not push pales in comparison to the actual problems it uncovers. > The bad guys here are the random authors who have designed a bad experiment, deliberately set out to undermine academic institutions, and then rather than presenting real evidence have written a political hit piece. Claiming these people undermine academic institutions is like blaming your upstairs neighbour stomping on the ground for your house of cards imploding. If a journal accepts and publishes such submissions, it was never an academic institution to begin with. The completely sufficient evidence for this is the acceptance and publication of those papers.

Yoric 8y ago
> Academic journals publish papers deliberately. They don’t ‘accidentally’ publish bad papers, I can assure you that nobody accidentally clicks the ‘publish’ button. Whatever further agenda the article may or may not push pales in comparison to the actual problems it uncovers. Academic journals certainly publish papers (good or bad) deliberately because the peer reviewers consider them of a sufficient quality and interest for the domain. It has always been known that it's possible to get low quality papers in certain journals – sometimes good ones, if one puts sufficient efforts – in pretty much all domains. Concluding that these publications are accepted "to push an agenda" requires a leap of logic. In the past, it has been shown that simply mimicking the language (using Markov chains) was pretty much sufficient to get into some journals. > > The bad guys here are the random authors who have designed a bad experiment, deliberately set out to undermine academic institutions, and then rather than presenting real evidence have written a political hit piece. > > Claiming these people undermine academic institutions is like blaming your upstairs neighbour stomping on the ground for your house of cards imploding. If a journal accepts and publishes such submissions, it was never an academic institution to begin with. The completely sufficient evidence for this is the acceptance and publication of those papers. On this point, I mostly agree with claudius. While the authors have written something that looks much more like a poitical clickbait than actual research findings, they have exposed weaknesses in the process or reviewers of some journals. These journals now have the ability to fix their mess, which will make everybody the winner.

Yoric 8y ago

> Academic journals publish papers deliberately. They don’t ‘accidentally’ publish bad papers, I can assure you that nobody accidentally clicks the ‘publish’ button. Whatever further agenda the article may or may not push pales in comparison to the actual problems it uncovers. Academic journals certainly publish papers (good or bad) deliberately because the peer reviewers consider them of a sufficient quality and interest for the domain. It has always been known that it's possible to get low quality papers in certain journals – sometimes good ones, if one puts sufficient efforts – in pretty much all domains. Concluding that these publications are accepted "to push an agenda" requires a leap of logic. In the past, it has been shown that simply mimicking the language (using Markov chains) was pretty much sufficient to get into some journals. > > The bad guys here are the random authors who have designed a bad experiment, deliberately set out to undermine academic institutions, and then rather than presenting real evidence have written a political hit piece. > > Claiming these people undermine academic institutions is like blaming your upstairs neighbour stomping on the ground for your house of cards imploding. If a journal accepts and publishes such submissions, it was never an academic institution to begin with. The completely sufficient evidence for this is the acceptance and publication of those papers. On this point, I mostly agree with claudius. While the authors have written something that looks much more like a poitical clickbait than actual research findings, they have exposed weaknesses in the process or reviewers of some journals. These journals now have the ability to fix their mess, which will make everybody the winner.