Was there any of this outside the Dawkins/Harris world? I feel like I've seen very little and I'm a target demo for it.
-
-
Replying to @StoneColdBalla @CathyYoung63
I think the Dawkins/Harris world is pretty sizable? But I also saw CHS retweet it, for example.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @barrydeutsch @StoneColdBalla
I RT'd it, though that was before I realized the pay-to-publish angle.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Though I think
@HPluckrose has made some interesting arguments in defense of the experimenthttps://areomagazine.com/2017/05/21/sokal-affair-2-0-penis-envy-addressing-its-critics/ …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The arguments for why it's a legit journal (it's on some lists!), rather than the pay-for-play journal it is, are not persuasive.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
OA journals do charge to cover their costs. Some do not peer review & accept almost anything and wind up on lists of predatory journals.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
1. If there was a real problem with gender studies journals not being able to tell purposeful nonsense from sincere papers, then they could
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think being able to spot hoaxes is less important than being able to spot complete nonsense, sincere or not. We know that's a problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Here's the thing: A lot of people claim is "complete nonsense" comes down to ideology. There's a way of testing this: Write a paper that is
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @barrydeutsch @HPluckrose and
purposely made of pure nonsense and see if it can be accepted by better-than-bottom-of-the-barrel gender studies journals.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Does this make a substantial difference to accidentally made of pure nonsense?
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.