Hate to say it but the Conceptual Penis paper is a damp squib. Pay to pay journal with a sketchy editor and bogus 'reviewers'.
-
-
Replying to @St_Rev
I’m slightly aggrieved by the authors’ failure on this. It’s persistently bugging me. Why put so much effort into a misfire? Grump grump.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
the fun answer would be "false flag!" but I don't really believe that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
less fun but more likely: they really expected it would get into the better journal they tried first, and then they were in salvage mode
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mattskala @St_Rev
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/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
yeah... seems to me where they slipped was not properly vetting the alternate that the first journal recommended to them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
and if the alternate is a junk journal, the fact that the first one recommended it IS a legitimate criticism of that first journal.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mattskala @St_Rev
So, turns out there’s quite a lot of discussion of this in the blogosphere and on twitter…
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And after reading the top five posts, I think the skeptics fucked up pretty badly. Wasted opportunity and makes them look bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I should have done more diligence on this before tweeting about it, and feel stupid myself.
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.