OK here is my take on the 'grievance studies hoax.' I think it shows that generally poorly reasoned, largely unfalsifiable papers with apparently absurd conclusions can get published in top journals in critical-studies-type fields. Fair enough. But it does NOT show a special ...https://twitter.com/AreoMagazine/status/1047292046073950208 …
-
-
Relatedly, apparently nobody thought to Google the authors' fake institutions, even out of curiosity as to what other amazing work this collective could be producing.
-
That said, though, I wonder how long it would take a smart person with a moderate understanding of ANOVA to write a fake piece that would get accepted in JPSP, give or take the author identity issue.
-
See, for example https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=Stapel&as_publication=Journal+of+Personality+and+Social+Psychology&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C18 … (not that these are all fraudulent, presumably)
-
Yes, but Stapel had a lot of training in the field. Francisco's point is that these people are just generic academics who learned some jargon and writing styles, and how to work the system, in a pretty short time.
-
This comment under the Areo article is good, I think.https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/comment-page-3/#comment-9875 …
-
Here's the comment for anyone who doesn't want to reward the Aero piece with another click:pic.twitter.com/1NcKbZTcNM
-
I think it's worth the click, as the replies are good too. :D
-
Be that as it may, the hoax was a bad-faith effort dishonestly and unethically dressed up as "necessary research." The payoff for the perpetrators is clicks and attention. I prefer not to give unethical researchers the reward they desire, quality of comments aside.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Everyone following
@RealPeerReview on twitter knows there is a "special" problem in those specific fields. It makes for a good laugh, but it's often so outlandish and methodology so ridiculous that one can't help but wonder why those fields belong in academia.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Indeed. What would be useful and an actual study would be analysis of the data. For instance what attributes permitted publication and which prompted rejection.
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.