Personally, I thought the hoax was very witty, and well done, and I'm predisposed to think most of this critical theory stuff is bollocks anyway. But, I also think that people are going to continue to argue over what if anything it proves.
-
-
OK, so you're not claiming that the standards of peer review in 'grievance studies' is any worse than that in physics say. I stand corrected.
-
I have no idea whether it is or not or even whether they could be compared because dishonest or erroneous peer review in a field which upholds an evidence-based epistemology would look totally different to explicit rejection of an evidence-based epistemology.
-
I can see that if a subfield is essentially printing fairy stories, then it's hard to compare its peer review to that of physics.
-
Peer-review systems are almost beside the point.
-
You have to forgive me for being confused then, by what you're trying to prove!
-
I *thought* this was a test of peer-review in these journals, but am I now to understand that their peer-review standards are beside the point?
-
@christianjbdev This was clearly a test to see if one could pass off complete rubbish as legitimate research and findings within the humanities if one flattered certain ideologies and political angles. It succeeded. Does that clear it up? -
Hey! Don't yell at him. Sincere questioner and friend. (Only I get to yell at him)
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.