3 ms·

It was accepted by Gender, Place & Culture. In fact it was not only accepted, it received an award for exemplary scholarship. Out of the 21 papers submitted [1

It was accepted by Gender, Place & Culture. In fact it was not only accepted, it received an award for exemplary scholarship. Out of the 21 papers submitted [1] 9 were rejected, 7 were published, 3 were asked to revised and resubmit for publication, and 1 was currently under review when the hoax was revealed. The fact that totally bogus papers have about a coin flip chance of being accepted is astounding. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

tptacek 6y ago
You're astounded that a piece that faked 1000 hours of observational studies was accepted in the #15th-ranked gender studies journal? Respectfully: I think what's shocking you is how many journals there are. (Revise-and-resubmit, by the way, is a nice way of saying "reject").
- manfredo 6y ago
  I'm astounded that a research didn't bat an eye about someone claiming to have observed a thousand instances of dog-humping, managed to identify the genders of the dogs, as well as the sexual orientation of the owners - and to have published the paper anyway when the authors claimed to have accidentally thrown away the original data. And to put the cherry on top, to have decided to give this paper an award for exemplary scholarship.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    They didn't claim "a thousand instances". They claim 1000 hours of field study. That number shocks people, but over the course of a year, it's a half-time job for a researcher, and so your argument is left at "that seems like a dumb thing for a researcher to allocate half their time to". I mean, sure, I agree, but so what? That's not a very interesting argument, or a damning one.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      I think you're missing the series of events. The authors never submitted any false data. They claimed that this was what their research found, and when the journal asked for the actual research data the authors claimed that they had written the finding on pen and paper and lost the only physical copy. The journal published the paper anyway, without ever even seeing the data.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        What you're saying now is that you think it's standard practice for peer reviewers to request the raw data for papers they're reviewing? The paper authors signed an actual contract affirming that they hadn't fabricated the data.
        manfredo 6y ago
        It's normal practice for publications to publish papers from authors who explicitly say that they don't even retain the data used to produce the paper? If that's the case what's even the point of peer review? At this point it seems like you're saying that peer review doesn't actually involve any sort of review. Fortunately, though, other academics don't share your experience that peer review is incapable of identifying faulty research. Because if it did, then there'd be little to no reason to put trust in academia.
        tptacek 6y ago
        Adversarial review with respect to the veracity of the paper author? Unless you're making claims that would upend the field, no, it does not involve any of that sort of review. "I spent 1000 hours taking notes in a dog park" is not an extraordinary claim. We're saying the same things back and forth to each other at this point and can probably wrap it up.
        manfredo 6y ago
        I didn't say adversarial review. I said publishing papers from authors who explicitly disclaim that they do not have access to their own data any more. Because that's what this publication did. They asked for the data, the hoaxsters claimed that they lost the data, and the journal published the paper anyway. If what you say is true, that reviewers don't bother reviewing the actual data, then mistakes like missing a decimal point and reporting figures an order of magnitude off would not be caught. That would be astounding, but fortunately most of my coworkers who have experience in academia do not corroborate your claim that reviewers don't bother to look at the data used to produce the paper.

tptacek 6y ago

You're astounded that a piece that faked 1000 hours of observational studies was accepted in the #15th-ranked gender studies journal? Respectfully: I think what's shocking you is how many journals there are. (Revise-and-resubmit, by the way, is a nice way of saying "reject").

manfredo 6y ago
I'm astounded that a research didn't bat an eye about someone claiming to have observed a thousand instances of dog-humping, managed to identify the genders of the dogs, as well as the sexual orientation of the owners - and to have published the paper anyway when the authors claimed to have accidentally thrown away the original data. And to put the cherry on top, to have decided to give this paper an award for exemplary scholarship.
- tptacek 6y ago
  They didn't claim "a thousand instances". They claim 1000 hours of field study. That number shocks people, but over the course of a year, it's a half-time job for a researcher, and so your argument is left at "that seems like a dumb thing for a researcher to allocate half their time to". I mean, sure, I agree, but so what? That's not a very interesting argument, or a damning one.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    I think you're missing the series of events. The authors never submitted any false data. They claimed that this was what their research found, and when the journal asked for the actual research data the authors claimed that they had written the finding on pen and paper and lost the only physical copy. The journal published the paper anyway, without ever even seeing the data.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      What you're saying now is that you think it's standard practice for peer reviewers to request the raw data for papers they're reviewing? The paper authors signed an actual contract affirming that they hadn't fabricated the data.
      - manfredo 6y ago
        It's normal practice for publications to publish papers from authors who explicitly say that they don't even retain the data used to produce the paper? If that's the case what's even the point of peer review? At this point it seems like you're saying that peer review doesn't actually involve any sort of review. Fortunately, though, other academics don't share your experience that peer review is incapable of identifying faulty research. Because if it did, then there'd be little to no reason to put trust in academia.
        tptacek 6y ago
        Adversarial review with respect to the veracity of the paper author? Unless you're making claims that would upend the field, no, it does not involve any of that sort of review. "I spent 1000 hours taking notes in a dog park" is not an extraordinary claim. We're saying the same things back and forth to each other at this point and can probably wrap it up.
        manfredo 6y ago
        I didn't say adversarial review. I said publishing papers from authors who explicitly disclaim that they do not have access to their own data any more. Because that's what this publication did. They asked for the data, the hoaxsters claimed that they lost the data, and the journal published the paper anyway. If what you say is true, that reviewers don't bother reviewing the actual data, then mistakes like missing a decimal point and reporting figures an order of magnitude off would not be caught. That would be astounding, but fortunately most of my coworkers who have experience in academia do not corroborate your claim that reviewers don't bother to look at the data used to produce the paper.