An ongoing misconception here is that academic journals only publish 'facts' Not really. They publish research articles. Depending on the field, and the field

An ongoing misconception here is that academic journals only publish 'facts' Not really. They publish research articles. Depending on the field, and the field's philosophical perspective on the construction of knowledge, that can take differing forms. Those differing forms are not just valid but important. And understanding the differences is also, important. An article about medical treatment necessarily does different things and looks different than a journal in the humanities (for example). They make meaning from information in different ways - and that is what all forms of research do, make meaning. Research at its core is not about the discovery of facts...this is basic philosophy of science, basic Thomas Kuhn. Standards like replicability may be of use for making meaning in some fields, but they are not necessarily equally useful in others, often because the level of contextual situating that needs to occur reaches towards the impossible. Serious members of the field would not have taken the Grievance Studies articles as 'capital-F-FACT' they instead would have interpreted it as a perspective, an argument, an interpretation. Specifically, the entire field of critical studies exists to, in varying forms, critique the ways in which 'discovery of facts' is a reductivist way of looking at meaning making that privileges certain perspectives over others - by treating some perspectives as reality. So the critique here, and looking back at Sokal, isn't that 'hahaha I pulled one over on you' its that 'we assumed that you were giving us a new perspective in good faith that we could collectively learn from' and ...'now you are standing here laughing at us because you acted like a jerk.' It's two different world views with one willing to be open (by choice) to outside critique and perspectives, and the other supremely self-confident that critique and perspective is unnecessary. In effect, it's like a legal opinion that separates matters of interpreting law and matters of finding fact.