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