3 ms·
The fact that hoax papers can so easily get through makes a mockery of the process. It shows there is next to no rigor on what is being submitted and it is jus
by Vaslo 5y ago
The fact that hoax papers can so easily get through makes a mockery of the process. It shows there is next to no rigor on what is being submitted and it is just an echo chamber where ridiculous topics like “canine trans community discrimination” can masquerade as philosophy or science.
- femiagbabiaka 5y agoIf you think that’s crazy, you would be surprised at the kind of stuff that can get into almost any journal on any subject. The point is that research fraud and poor vetting are a problem for many fields, not just the ones that you or I may dislike… so you have to wonder what would motivate someone to only point out their ideological enemies flaws.
- wayneftw 5y ago> so you have to wonder what would motivate someone to only point out their ideological enemies flaws. In the article it clearly states that he was surrounded by these illiberal ideologues and being harassed by them even before he started publishing these papers, simply for using critical thinking.
- q1w2 5y agoThis makes it sound like it's equally bad in all fields, when in fact certain fields have a far far higher problem than others.
- femiagbabiaka 5y agoThis statement seems correct but I have no data to back it up. Do you?
- native_samples 5y agoHe's in the social sciences. It makes sense he'd focus on that. It is possible to publish nonsense papers in STEM journals too, hence the stories about "tortured phrases" that cropped up a few weeks ago. However there's no particular reason a philosophy professor would be aware of those journals or have any motivation to explore their integrity; naturally he will focus on journals about subjects he understands better than e.g. electronics or medicine.
- femiagbabiaka 5y agoI hope that's not his reasoning, because it is rather lazy. In order to know whether or not a phenomenon is a problem that matters you need to get an understanding of what is "normal" or not. Fraud is common in all fields in life. Someone who obsesses over the fraud present in one ideological wing of their field and nothing else would not be someone that I take seriously, personally.
- badRNG 5y agoThe fact is his papers were rejected from highly respected journals. If I send an incorrect math proof to hundreds of math journals and one small open access journal decides to publish it, I haven't disproven math, nor would anyone think I had. It seems to me this falls in line with most of the anti-PC "scholarship" that does little more than confirm the biases of people who are primed to believe anything that discredits what they perceive as "PC", "SJW", or "woke."
- me_me_me 5y ago> The fact that hoax papers can so easily get through makes a mockery of the process. Not only get through but later on get cited in 'legit' papers.
- ModernMech 5y agoCurious to read some of the papers that cited the fraudulent papers. Do you have any examples?