3 ms·

Everybody loves talking about hoaxes in social science publications, but there is no shortage of such hoaxes in other, more "empirical" disciplines as well: htt

• twic 6y ago
  No, that list does not show that. The examples from physics and chemistry, at least, are of nonsense papers being published by "predatory journals", which will publish pretty much anything as long as the author pays their fee. They aren't examples of serious journals being hoaxed.
  • nsajko 6y ago
    What makes the predatory journals relatively non-serious? What merit is there in your distinction between a "hoaxed" journal and a journal that publishes faulty papers on purpose? Please see the "Bogdanov affair", where "serious" peer-reviewed journals accepted bogus theoretical physics works. I already linked to the relevant Wikipedia page in a nearby comment.
    • twic 6y ago
      I agree that the Bogdanov Affair is shameful! I tend to lump that in with string theory more generally, which looks like an embarrassment to me.
  • d3nj4l 6y ago
    Both the sokal paper and the first paper by the Boghossian group were published in open-access journals, of the same standard as the other fields. The only papers to be published in peer-reviewed journals are the last few by the Boghossian group, and those don't really prove that it's a problem unique to social sciences, either. The Boghossian group didn't seek to establish a control study, so we don't know if a similarly motivated group couldn't get papers published in other fields.