Five years ago, I suggested systematically Sokaling all peer-reviewed journals. To “Sokal” is, hereby, to attempt to publish clearly bogus papers to illustrate the brokenness of the academic publication process.https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/307083846556471297 …
Needs to be unlockable by parties other than the author after a reasonable delay.
-
-
Ah yes, if that is a requirement other means are necessary.
-
Why does it need to be? Because the author is going to disappear? If the author can’t unlock their commitment, just assume it was a hoax and refuse publication.
- 1 more reply
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.
Today
I had in mind a more ambitious project. Pointing out that “grievance studies” fields are mostly nonsense is shooting fish in a barrel. We know that, for instance, “cognitive neuroscience” is also largely bollocks:
It’s an objective fact that the peer review process isn’t working. We also know, from
Also in 2013, I suggested that there should be substantial career rewards for successful Sokaling.
There should also be consequences for editors and reviewers that accept demonstrably and intentionally bogus papers.
Making Sokaling a routine part of the academic process would go a long way towards fixing it, I think. A few dozen Sokalings are a good start to raise awareness, but if—say—5% of all submitted papers were Sokals, reviewers and editors would become much more careful.
How would this work in practice? A paper would have to be registered as a Sokaling before first submission, along with an explanation of what the author thinks is wrong with it. A cryptographic time-locked database could ensure honesty about this.