1) There are different standards of evidence in different fields, including different fields of science. 2) These fields aren't pretending to be science (unlike some fields...). 3) Peer review sucks for catching deliberate fraud, including in hard sciences.
-
Not in all disciplines evenly though. How many sokal-style hoaxes have made it/ could make it into a math journal.
Depends on the journal, won't it? There are non-gatekeeping journals in mathematics, too (probably predatory ones, but there you go). Again, the Sokal case was for a journal that deliberately didn't use peer review to decide whether to accept or reject, rightly or wrongly.
-
-
If the idea is that fields like mathematics or theoretical physics are immune to deliberate fraud, there are reasons to suspect they are not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair …
-
I know they are not. Everything is susceptible to fraud. But the goal should be to make these journals less susceptible across all disciplines. Like how companies hire penetration testers (hackers) to test their security.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.