Predatory journals? Real problem. Some crappy work getting in? Issue in many fields. A reasonable discussion about the scope of humanities? Sure. But bring along discussing economics and it’s wild assumptions, too. This hoax isn’t a critique of academia. It’s a misleading stunt.
-
Show this thread
-
Sokal did something important. I applaud bullshit detection. This is just playing to the lucrative, anti-intellectual academia-bashing—right & left versions. It’s the difference between asking, say, clinical trials to be pre-registered and grifting by peddling anti-vaccination.
6 replies 15 retweets 82 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
I just don't follow how this, of all things, could be considered anti-intellectual. it is satire. it stings because it is, hopefully, making everyone think more about what the hell is happening in academia when a paper like this is getting glowing reviewspic.twitter.com/Z2Bv2698hI
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @codybrown
See, exactly what I mean. Read the piece I linked to—that thing got rejected! Again and again and again. Shot down by concerned reviewers. That's exactly it: the trio deliberately fudged how they talk about it so everyone thinks it got accepted. They aren't out to show problems.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @codybrown
I don't mean crap doesn't get published—there are predatory journals that will "publish" anything in any field without review (these are flat out fake journals). Also, some terrible stuff can eventually be published if you try hard. But that's not how you evaluate a whole field.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @codybrown
That paper did not get "glowing reviews", it got the opposite. That you think the opposite of truth is why I call this trio's misrepresentation the actual hoax. We need better bullshit detection, and better understanding of how do you actually do an audit study. This is a stunt.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
the opposite of truth? I read most of the reviews before chiming in. Some pushback but some are very supportive. This was also one of the few papers that was in review. the seven others got in with glowing feedback. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WVJQjxY6pCClO3mcnsBK6dfU_BGiN6HC/view …pic.twitter.com/LRVX3WhOdK
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @codybrown
One, the paper was rejected. Roundly rejected. Multiple times. Two, that reviewer came forward. He's a grad student who was doing his very first review, and he used positive language from a review he just got because he wanted to have *something* positive to say in a rejection.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @codybrown
So all these hoaxers got is rejection (which they hid and misled so that it got *widely* reported by people with PhDs as "accepted" paper—not a coincidence, they misrepresented the rejection) and exposed that .. some fields encourage "put in a positive sentence in rejection".
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @codybrown
Also, again, they cherrypicked the few positive sentences in rejection after rejection after rejection. So what do we have here? Please do not put a single positive sentence in a rejection just because you think there's a human being on the other end? Meh. Not Sokal here.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I personally like the more direct language in some fields' reviews, but admittedly, put in a positive sentence somewhere isn't the worst crime, especially considering a lot of these fields are marginalized. But again, they DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTED the rejection as acceptance.
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.