And we are criticising the unsound ones and to differentiate them from rigorous scholarship, we spelled out a very specific approach that we were criticising. See"What is the problem?" https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ … See the discussion where we say this does not warrant blanket rejection
-
-
But you could make up experimental results like you did here. Or make up theory like you did here. You telling me honestly you don't think you could use this same general hack to get a string theory or m-brane paper published in physics theory?
-
Its not general. It is very specific. I don't know if there is a problem that can be exploited in physics. The bad epistemology would need to already be present in the body of work for it to work & I can't speculate on what that would be. I know little about physics.
-
Here's something that might be clearer. Suppose bad scholarship were being done on the dangers of fat to support sugar companies. This has been suggested. Hoaxers could test this by drawing on existing scholarship to write bad papers that would make the problem clearer.
-
Along the way, they could show that they got lots of direction from reviewers to say more about how fat is bad and sugar is good.This would then show a problem in knowledge production in that field. It is a different problem to the one in identity studies.
-
Essentially, a problem needs to exist for this kind of exploration to be able to draw on the scholarly canon to make their cases. This problem won't be same in every field but there can certainly be many fields which have problems.
-
Maybe. I'm not sure. I am pretty sure this method would never prove such a problem exists in any field, though. Anyone can do enough background to set up some decent cites and review, then lie about results or sneak in some glaring method flaw under a fake name.
-
I think you need to read our papers and see what you are suggesting could have been plausible scholarship.
-
I mean, you really think it'd be more difficult to say you blew hundreds of grand running a particle accelerator to get this data and try to get it into some obscure particle physics journal?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The peer review process is vulnerable to publishing work that it finds sound, yes. That's actually how it works. It found ours sound because it had already published the stuff we cited. It even recommended more to us in review. The question is "Is it sound?"
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
But this seems like a reasonable hypothesis, well worth entertaining and thinking about it. Did you show that transphobia isn't a thing? No. Did you show that it's ridiculous to think that attitudes toward anal penetration don't relate to attitudes about gender identity? No.
-
But Will, Showing that “transphobia is not a thing was not the object” The burden of proof lies on the people who make specific statements.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is an amazingly defeatist attitude. I thought you were better than that.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.