3 ms·

The papers in the article were published in journals that will publish anything for a fee. The "get me off your fucking mailing list" paper was also peer review

The papers in the article were published in journals that will publish anything for a fee. The "get me off your fucking mailing list" paper was also peer reviewed. The reviewer asked for formatting changes and citations, very similar to the reviews that these other hoax papers got.

xyzzyz 8y ago
No, that’s completely incorrect. The papers in the article above were published in top (or close to top) journals in their respective fields.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  I have never seen someone claim that before. Can you back that up?
  - yorwba 8y ago
    "Gender, Place and Culture" ( https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cgpc20/current https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cgpc20/current ) has an impact factor of 1.594. No idea whether that's enough to make it a top journal in feminist geography or not. The retraction notice for the "Dog Park" paper is currently the most recent publication on that site.
    - daveFNbuck 8y ago
      That certainly contradicts what I've heard about these papers before. Gender, Place and Culture does seem to be a top journal. Thanks.
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    We approached this new effort by asking two central questions: Are we correct in our claim that highly regarded peer-reviewed journals in gender studies and related fields will publish obvious hoaxes? (...) And, if not, what will they publish? We set out with three basic rules: (1) we’ll focus almost exclusively upon ranked peer-reviewed journals in the field, the higher the better and at the top of their subdisciplines whenever possible; (2) we will not pay to publish any paper (...) https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studi...
- mturmon 8y ago
  The back story I heard is that the authors submitted to the top journals, were rejected, and kept going downward in perceived impact until the article was accepted. That is, that most of the articles (with perhaps one exception?) did not appear in the close-to-top journals. And they had many papers in the works at one time, and some of them did not get in at all despite the above "just-good-enough" optimization technique. Although I kind of enjoyed the original Sokal paper - I was a subscriber to Lingua Franca, where Sokal announced the hoax in the first place - I think the message of this iteration is more that: "if you work hard to game the system, you can indeed find a hole and game the system". This finding is not that interesting. --- Specifically (https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sokal-Squared-Is-Huge/244714 https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sokal-Squared-Is-Huge/2447...): "Three scholars [...] spent 10 months writing 20 hoax papers [...] and submitted them to "the best journals in the relevant fields." Of the 20, seven papers were accepted, four were published online, and three were in process when the authors [stopped].
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

xyzzyz 8y ago

No, that’s completely incorrect. The papers in the article above were published in top (or close to top) journals in their respective fields.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
I have never seen someone claim that before. Can you back that up?
- yorwba 8y ago
  "Gender, Place and Culture" ( https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cgpc20/current https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cgpc20/current ) has an impact factor of 1.594. No idea whether that's enough to make it a top journal in feminist geography or not. The retraction notice for the "Dog Park" paper is currently the most recent publication on that site.
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    That certainly contradicts what I've heard about these papers before. Gender, Place and Culture does seem to be a top journal. Thanks.
- xyzzyz 8y ago
  We approached this new effort by asking two central questions: Are we correct in our claim that highly regarded peer-reviewed journals in gender studies and related fields will publish obvious hoaxes? (...) And, if not, what will they publish? We set out with three basic rules: (1) we’ll focus almost exclusively upon ranked peer-reviewed journals in the field, the higher the better and at the top of their subdisciplines whenever possible; (2) we will not pay to publish any paper (...) https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studi...
mturmon 8y ago
The back story I heard is that the authors submitted to the top journals, were rejected, and kept going downward in perceived impact until the article was accepted. That is, that most of the articles (with perhaps one exception?) did not appear in the close-to-top journals. And they had many papers in the works at one time, and some of them did not get in at all despite the above "just-good-enough" optimization technique. Although I kind of enjoyed the original Sokal paper - I was a subscriber to Lingua Franca, where Sokal announced the hoax in the first place - I think the message of this iteration is more that: "if you work hard to game the system, you can indeed find a hole and game the system". This finding is not that interesting. --- Specifically (https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sokal-Squared-Is-Huge/244714 https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sokal-Squared-Is-Huge/2447...): "Three scholars [...] spent 10 months writing 20 hoax papers [...] and submitted them to "the best journals in the relevant fields." Of the 20, seven papers were accepted, four were published online, and three were in process when the authors [stopped].
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]