4 ms·

These kind of stunts are pretty annoying, though. I know with the original (who was it again?), it was essentially a case of the academic leveraging his reputat

These kind of stunts are pretty annoying, though. I know with the original (who was it again?), it was essentially a case of the academic leveraging his reputation, the editors being a bit like 'this seems kooky, but sure, you're the expert', then him turning around and pretending like he'd fooled everyone.

hnuser123456 8y ago
It was by James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose. They submitted papers with fictitious names and institutions. They were not leveraging their own reputations (besides the publication's, if they were accepted, and a Richard Baldwin who lent his identity for some of them.) They spent time reviewing and citing existing work, so they could legitimately claim to be building on it, but then try to go in the most absurd directions possible, so absurd that any self-respecting academic publication ought to immediately reject it with disgust, and see what happened. 7 out of 20 such papers were accepted, 4 were published, they received 4 invitations to peer-review other papers, and 1 "gained special recognition for excellence." https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studi...
- hyeonwho4 8y ago
  ... and they were only discovered to be frauds by the twitter feeds that mock social sciences research.
- pasabagi 8y ago
  If I published something in any of the innumerable scientific 'journals' that bombard my spam box, I could probably publish whatever I liked. That doesn't mean I can say science is methodologically flawed. The humanities, no doubt, deserve criticism, but I honestly don't see the appeal of stunts designed to 'prove' that a certain field is not worth the time of day, by people who don't even understand the field at the most basic level. How would they know? Why would they care? It strikes me as embarrassing for everybody involved- embarrassing, to publish something without properly vetting it, embarrassing, to dismiss something as nonsense without actually having the measure of it, embarrassing, to be so enthusiastic about this kind of 'proof', which so obviously combines ignorance with arrogance. There is no such thing as grievance studies. Critical theory has nothing to do with identity. The whole thing is about as close to the mark as Pat Buchanan's critique of feminism, and about as clever. In short, depressing.
  - hnuser123456 8y ago
    According to the little bit I've read about this, some of the publishing journals are/were fairly well regarded (which would be a self-serving claim by this group.) The "success" of those stories says more about the individual publication than the entire fields they represent. At most, it is a critique of some niches of otherwise valid fields. At best, it's a nice reminder to pursue nothing but objectivity. There are still worthy results from the fields involved, maybe even these publications, and there will continue to be more. Amongst the embarrassing amateurishness of it all, and the obvious conclusions, I found it interesting how commonly reviewer comments used the word "exciting" in response to the "Going in Through the Back Door" paper.
  - _jal 8y ago
    > I honestly don't see the appeal of stunts designed to 'prove' that a certain field is not worth the time of day You answer your own question. While the methods may claim to be "defending science", the goals are political.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Oh the humanit[ies]!
hyeonwho4 8y ago
Peer review is supposed to catch cases like Sokal's. As an editor, if you are not qualified to read the paper, then you should try to contact someone who is, or suggest publication in a different journal. But the problem goes deeper than that. Sokal intentionally included meaningless sentences, self-contradictory sentences, and scientifically false sentences. On none of these was he called out by journal editors or reviewers.
- pasabagi 8y ago
  >meaningless sentences, self-contradictory sentences, and scientifically false sentences To provide a little explanatory context here, the humanities has always had a great deal more tolerance for bad writing than other fields. Kant introduced the main point of his Critique of Judgment in a footnote. Hegel loved self-contradictory sentences. Somebody like Heraclitus writes a lot of stuff that, if perhaps not meaningless, certainly looks meaningless. I don't know what that says about the entire history of philosophy, but anyway, it does say something about a small group's willingness to publish something that had some shitty prose.
ACow_Adonis 8y ago
You say "essentially a case of the academic leveraging his reputation" like the fact that someone could use reputation rather than content to be accepted and published into a journal isn't an equally scandalous act in and of itself? Seriously, I can't be the only one who sees that?
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  It is scandalous to anyone not normalized to it - unfortunately masses of people tend to devolve into those sorts of cliques and social clubs for personal advancement. It pretty much is corruption essentially but you are the 'crazy' one if you point it out because 'things are done that way'.

hnuser123456 8y ago

It was by James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose. They submitted papers with fictitious names and institutions. They were not leveraging their own reputations (besides the publication's, if they were accepted, and a Richard Baldwin who lent his identity for some of them.) They spent time reviewing and citing existing work, so they could legitimately claim to be building on it, but then try to go in the most absurd directions possible, so absurd that any self-respecting academic publication ought to immediately reject it with disgust, and see what happened. 7 out of 20 such papers were accepted, 4 were published, they received 4 invitations to peer-review other papers, and 1 "gained special recognition for excellence." https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studi...

hyeonwho4 8y ago
... and they were only discovered to be frauds by the twitter feeds that mock social sciences research.
pasabagi 8y ago
If I published something in any of the innumerable scientific 'journals' that bombard my spam box, I could probably publish whatever I liked. That doesn't mean I can say science is methodologically flawed. The humanities, no doubt, deserve criticism, but I honestly don't see the appeal of stunts designed to 'prove' that a certain field is not worth the time of day, by people who don't even understand the field at the most basic level. How would they know? Why would they care? It strikes me as embarrassing for everybody involved- embarrassing, to publish something without properly vetting it, embarrassing, to dismiss something as nonsense without actually having the measure of it, embarrassing, to be so enthusiastic about this kind of 'proof', which so obviously combines ignorance with arrogance. There is no such thing as grievance studies. Critical theory has nothing to do with identity. The whole thing is about as close to the mark as Pat Buchanan's critique of feminism, and about as clever. In short, depressing.
- hnuser123456 8y ago
  According to the little bit I've read about this, some of the publishing journals are/were fairly well regarded (which would be a self-serving claim by this group.) The "success" of those stories says more about the individual publication than the entire fields they represent. At most, it is a critique of some niches of otherwise valid fields. At best, it's a nice reminder to pursue nothing but objectivity. There are still worthy results from the fields involved, maybe even these publications, and there will continue to be more. Amongst the embarrassing amateurishness of it all, and the obvious conclusions, I found it interesting how commonly reviewer comments used the word "exciting" in response to the "Going in Through the Back Door" paper.
- _jal 8y ago
  > I honestly don't see the appeal of stunts designed to 'prove' that a certain field is not worth the time of day You answer your own question. While the methods may claim to be "defending science", the goals are political.
sokoloff 8y ago
Oh the humanit[ies]!

hyeonwho4 8y ago

Peer review is supposed to catch cases like Sokal's. As an editor, if you are not qualified to read the paper, then you should try to contact someone who is, or suggest publication in a different journal. But the problem goes deeper than that. Sokal intentionally included meaningless sentences, self-contradictory sentences, and scientifically false sentences. On none of these was he called out by journal editors or reviewers.

pasabagi 8y ago
>meaningless sentences, self-contradictory sentences, and scientifically false sentences To provide a little explanatory context here, the humanities has always had a great deal more tolerance for bad writing than other fields. Kant introduced the main point of his Critique of Judgment in a footnote. Hegel loved self-contradictory sentences. Somebody like Heraclitus writes a lot of stuff that, if perhaps not meaningless, certainly looks meaningless. I don't know what that says about the entire history of philosophy, but anyway, it does say something about a small group's willingness to publish something that had some shitty prose.

ACow_Adonis 8y ago

You say "essentially a case of the academic leveraging his reputation" like the fact that someone could use reputation rather than content to be accepted and published into a journal isn't an equally scandalous act in and of itself? Seriously, I can't be the only one who sees that?

Nasrudith 8y ago
It is scandalous to anyone not normalized to it - unfortunately masses of people tend to devolve into those sorts of cliques and social clubs for personal advancement. It pretty much is corruption essentially but you are the 'crazy' one if you point it out because 'things are done that way'.