Hate to say it but the Conceptual Penis paper is a damp squib. Pay to pay journal with a sketchy editor and bogus 'reviewers'.
Well, if so, I think they ought to have disclosed that. Ah, hmm, wait:http://dailynous.com/2017/05/20/gender-studies-member-conceptual-penis-hoax/ …
-
-
yeah... seems to me where they slipped was not properly vetting the alternate that the first journal recommended to them.
-
and if the alternate is a junk journal, the fact that the first one recommended it IS a legitimate criticism of that first journal.
- 3 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.