The irony is in holding the hoax to higher standards than the discipline.
It's one more particularly satisfying bit of evidence in line with what we've all been seeing for quite a few years now.
-
-
Sure. And my point is that the hoax is classed as "satisfying" rather than being critiqued for logical holes. That's a serious problem.
-
Not going here again. You're seeing it as a bigger claim than it is. It is what it is. The limitations have been spelled out by authors.
-
As I highlight in my post, that's not how it was framed by prominent figures. That's also important. Why did they contradict the authors?
-
You are missing the bigger picture! Just more confirming evidence. I'm not going here again. Already tried to explain this.
-
But it's not confirming evidence for your hypothesis (gender studies is bad). It's confirming evidence for 'bad journals publish anything'.
-
LOL. YES! That was exactly their conclusion. :)
-
No, their main conclusion was 'journals in gender studies publish anything'. But the first, reputable gender studies journal rejected it.
-
What's more, there are many examples of similarly bogus papers in the hard sciences being accepted by crappy pay-to-publish journals.
- 18 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.