No, they didn't. This is just what it's easiest to refute. 1 test. 1 result.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @YeyoZa and
Is that how scholarship works now? 'We have an N of 1. PUBLISH!!!!'
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SisyphusRedemed @YeyoZa and
Is what how scholarship works? This is a twitter conversation.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @YeyoZa and
@GodDoesnt's article certainly seemed to present itself as scholarship. It was certainly ABOUT scholarship.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Hoax was aimed at scholarly publications. The denouement that it was satire was in Skeptic Magazine
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
But it wasn't published in a scholarly publication. It was published in a vanity pay-for-play journal. That itself undercuts the whole thing
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SisyphusRedemed @GodDoesnt
We can argue abt pay-to-publish. That was one of the targets. A lot of other journals similar rejection rate
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I was discussing submitting a physics paper today to a very prestigious science journal and it was pay to publish.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, that alone doesn't discredit it, does it? Simply a different way of funding.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't know any reputable journals in the humanities that are pay to publish. Maybe physics is different, but this hoax wasn't in physics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Well, other academics disagree with you & they're indexed by top databases.
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.