It's not a "problem in another field." It's that peer review as a system is vulnerable to the sort of attacks you used. You proved that peer review is vulnerable to malicious agents seeking to abuse it. Kudos. But I don't think you proved more than that.
-
-
Replying to @Dan_Carrigg @ChrisSchumerth and
What do you mean? We targetted a very specific epistemology and ethical structure that isn't found in other fields & showed it to exist in this one. We couldn't publish an argument that using dildos make men less transphobic in a physics journal. The precedent isn't there
4 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ChrisSchumerth and
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Dan_Carrigg @ChrisSchumerth and
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Dan_Carrigg and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Dan_Carrigg and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Dan_Carrigg and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ChrisSchumerth and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Dan_Carrigg @ChrisSchumerth and
I think you need to read our papers and see what you are suggesting could have been plausible scholarship.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ChrisSchumerth and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I have already explained very clearly why this isn't related to the point or purpose of the project a few times now so I will leave it here.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @ChrisSchumerth and
And I've already explained that your methods are unrelated to proving the point or purpose of your project.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.