.@St_Rev (and others) were immediately skeptical, and were right to be so.https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/865939540510470144 …
-
-
-
Here’s the background: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/05/concep … They submitted to a less-bad journal first, it was rejected, and they sent it to a junk one.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Journal was rubbish. There shouldn’t be such, but there are in hard science too. Doesn’t discredit field overall. http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/05/conceptual-penis-hoax-just-big-cock/ …
-
If contemporary gender studies is mostly nonsense (as seems plausible), they should have been able to Sokalize a high-reputation journal.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As far as I can tell, they were just sloppy and over-eager.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But, since every field has junk journals, this provides zero evidence re gender studies.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, I agree with that! OTOH, everyone also knows that the whole academic journal industry is awful and needs to be replaced, so not news…
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I thought this was a thoughtful take :: https://academeblog.org/2017/05/20/the-hoax-that-failed-or-skeptics-who-arent-very-skeptical/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Glad to see your follow up.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah but aren't you an expert in gender studies? or not? because celebrating a fake paper about gender might have even more poor consequence
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.