Seen some fairly absurd reactions to the neo-Sokal hoax.
The choice of fields to hoax was obviously political, and the "grievance studies" thing is political. Other fields have the same issues.
But lack of publishing standards across journals are a HUGE problem, not a nonissue.
Conversation
Just because someone has an axe to grind and hypocritically cherry picks, it doesn't mean their findings lose all relevance.
If you look at psychology, cognitive neuroscience or a bunch of other more serious-sounding fields, you'll find the same flaws. And they are *huge* flaws.
1
So to the people saying this is a problem with some particular fields, that is clearly false. Proportions also unknown.
As for people saying this is *not* a problem, it is clear proof that the scientific publishing process is corrupt. Not the first, or the last, but still proof.
1
I can understand criticism of the bias in the "experiment". It has no control, no null hypothesis, nothing.
I can't respect the claim that it's a small issue. That does not bear out.
Replying to
Ultimately, the desired proof that you can easily spoof the process was provided.
That the authors did not cast their net wide enough does not change that.