> That journal was, when I looked a few months ago, the #15th(!) ranked journal in gender studies, > That there are pay-for-play journals of last resort in most

> That journal was, when I looked a few months ago, the #15th(!) ranked journal in gender studies, > That there are pay-for-play journals of last resort in most fields Sure, but this is supposedly the #1 journal in feminist geography, at least if Wikipedia can be trusted. Seems bad for that field's leading journal to be coin-operated. Honestly, the fact that peer review does so little is part of the problem. I do think that the journals should be responsible for minor details like whether the people doing the study actually exist and can be contacted, and reviewers should catch it if someone reports something about 33% of an n=2 sample. The fact that there's no real review in journal publishing is itself part of the scandal, though you're right that this is by no means unique here. And I don't share your experience: I've yet to find anyone who has heard of this who isn't aware that the academic publishing model is pretty much broken everywhere. > Last time we had a thread about this, after I rattled off my own experience doing journal review (ACM and Usenix), someone else in a different STEM field jumped in to say that in their entire academic career they'd never even heard of someone requesting and verifying the raw data of an article they were reviewing for a journal I've yet to see nonsense of this type published in Cell, Nature, Science, ACM, or Usenix, though I won't claim it impossible. Are you aware of hoax papers in anything close to a leading journal in other fields?