Well, perhaps, but remember Bem in JZpSP, and the fake corpus of Stapel, and Schönnin physics.
Grievance scholars panicking, claiming it would be just as easy to get hoax papers accepted in the harder sciences. Fine. Go ahead and try to get one published in the main journals I review for: 'Intelligence' or 'Evolution and Human Behavior'. Let's see how it goes.
-
-
-
Fabricating data or misreporting analyses are very different from a hoax paper.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
If the Dog Park study was a bit more quantitatively rigorous, I can imagine it being published in a social psych journal as a novel way of measuring implicit bias related to heteronormativity.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There's always difficulty using language to define ineffable or paradoxical ideologies. That flaw doesn't negate the concepts however.
-
If two people are using difficult terminology honestly, a third person who didn't understand the terminology and just imitated/faked it wouldn't be able to fool them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nice thing with hard sciences is if something is surprising you can test it by recreating the experiments and seeing whether you can replicate the results! You may be able to get a paper in with fabricated data, but ultimately it will be outed. Not by “peer review” tho!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
yes, your field, which I fucking did my thesis in at Hopkins. Somehow *I* managed to learn that there's lots of different sub-areas of polisci and not all of them are rooted in any sort of falsifiable metrics which can be tested -- the key here is what systems there are 1/ -
(Oh, and for comparison, my Dad was a biologist who authored 72 papers cited over 2400 times so far, so I'm also familiar with those). "Gatekeepers" and peer review do not alone prevent frauds from being published. Well-forged data can always get through. 2/
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Precisely this. The time and effort required to perform a believable hoax is higher the more it relies on replication. The fact they managed to pull this off in such a short time is a statement about how said thing is easier to pull off in certain fields.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This problem isn't limited to the Social Sciences. Physics, mathematics, biology journals also get hoaxed but you never hear about those. People don't seem to work as hard at ridiculing them or publicizing it. Just not as much fun I suppose.
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.