@VermiciousKnid1 @Meaningness It was submitted to conference proceedings, which has no real peer review or editorial oversight.
-
-
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@VermiciousKnid1 Original Sokal hoax had the same problem—one of many problems with it. Need to troll reputable journals instead.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@VermiciousKnid1 Well, Social Text had some prestige. Difference between getting into Vogue and getting into the local paper.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@VermiciousKnid1 It didn’t even pretend to have a peer review system (according to wiki; I wouldn’t know).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@VermiciousKnid1 It had strong editorial oversight. Downplaying that was part of the attempt at coverup.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@VermiciousKnid1 cf. the self-description & submission guidelines at http://socialtext.dukejournals.org/1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@VermiciousKnid1 Bleagh. Put me right off the project. You’d have to read a bunch of this crap to imitate it competently.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@VermiciousKnid1 But that's exactly what Sokal refuted!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@St_Rev @VermiciousKnid1 Yes, but he imitated their linguistic style competently, which I suspect required reading a bunch of the stuff and>
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.