Peer review of “canine rape culture” paper

  last edited: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:53:23 -0600  
This peer review pertains to one of the Boghosian hoax papers. The discussion is truly mind boggling. These are academic professionals, educators, and allegedly scholars. This paper didn’t just slip past the review process, it was accepted with enthusiasm. It’s especially worth noting that the success rate of these hoax papers is better than that of many struggling early career scholars in the field. The hoaxers have day jobs, and this was a side project. It raises a devastating question for the field: if untrained authors can be successful cranking out satirical gibberish, what incentive is there for anyone to do genuine or sincere scholarship?

Twitter Search / RealPeerReviewTwitter Search / RealPeerReview wrote the following post Thu, 04 Oct 2018 05:51:13 -0600
https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/1047816407147302912

Reviewer 1 is very concerned about ethics of inspecting dog genitals without dog's consent, and the inequality that represents relative to human "participants" pic.twitter.com/vf6dhe0ykr
Image/photo

Image/photo

Image/photo
Image/photo

"Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper." Amazing.

#CriticalTheory #Boghosian
  
I notice it is redacted to protect the guilty
Another hoax hits postmodern journals

  last edited: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:26:05 -0600  
Another hoax strikes academic journals in postmodern/critical theory. This time, a systematic wave of nonsense papers were submitted to a variety of reputable journals, and several were accepted. Like I said last time, this kind of test happens in other fields (including mine). If, in a double-blind review process, you cannot reliably distinguish hoax articles from real ones, then AT BEST your editorial and review practices are broken. The knee-jerk response is to cry foul against the academic outsiders who effected this test. But the real blame lies with the editorial board, the reviewers, and the standards of scholarship within the field itself.

It sounds like these journals are planning to block future hoaxes by carefully vetting the *identities* and *credentials* of future authors. In other words, access to publication will be filtered by who you are, who you know, who your advisor is, what your affiliation is... not much better than a big vanity press club.

My own field went through blips of replication crises, fabrication/plagiarism crises in the past two decades. Other fields, most recently areas of psychology and sociology, are currently grappling with their own crises. The fields targeted by this hoax should now recognize that they have a legitimation crisis of their own. This is not something that anyone has done to them from the outside. This is a structural, systemic problem within critical theory, exactly the kind of thing that critical theorists claim to know best.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950

#CriticalTheory #Boghosian
  
In this Quillette article, several academics give their reactions to the Boghosian-led blitz of hoax papers. One of the responses quotes this paragraph from a serious philosophy paper (not one of the hoaxes):

A good example is an article from the Australasian Journal of Philosophy in which a feminist describes a “phallic drama” involving two statements, p and ~p (the negation of p):

There is really only one actor, p, and ~p is merely its receptacle. In the representation of the Venn diagram, p penetrates a passive, undifferentiated universal other which is specified as a lack, which offers no resistance, and whose behavior it controls completely.


Never mind that we could define p as ~q, and then q can have her way with p all she wants. Seriously though, it’s quite distressing to see people try to use the label “feminist” as a screen to protect shoddy bullshit. It doesn’t do feminism any favors to be associated with this kind of gibberish, it only benefits the authors who claim that their work is some kind of vanguard, only comprehensible to these embattled elites. Or... maybe they are just a cult of malevolent narcissists.

The Grievance Studies Scandal: Five Academics Respond - Quillette

Image/photo


Editor’s note: For the past year scholars James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian have sent fake papers to various academic journals which they describe as specialising in activism or “grievance studies.” Their stated mission has been to expose how easy it is to get “absurdities and morally fashionable political ideas published as legitimate academic research.”  To date, their project has been successful: seven papers have passed through peer review and have been published, including a 3000 word excerpt of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, rewritten in the language of Intersectionality theory and published in the Gender Studies journal Affilia. Below is a response to the scandal from five academics who are currently researching, publishing and teaching in the fields of Philosophy, English Studies, Behavioral Genetics and Economics. From Foolish Talk to Evil Madness — Nathan Cofnas (Philosophy) Nathan Cofnas is reading for a DPhil in philosophy at the University of Oxford. His work focuses on the philosophy of biology, broadly construed. He has published on such topics as innateness, the ethical implications of individual differences in intelligence, and Jewish …