3 ms·

It was by James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose. They submitted papers with fictitious names and institutions. They were not leveraging their own

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

... 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]!