Alt-right 'academics' publish dog rape and Mein Kampf papers in anti-feminist hoax

Watch
AngeryPenguin
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...rnals-terrible

An... odd... story, to say the least.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
I have a problem with opening links without being given a good reason or at least having the old curiosity aroused somehow, so I'm going to wait for a few replies to get an idea on whether it is worth the time.
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
I'm not quite sure how they are 'alt right'. At least not on the basis of that article.
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
"academic journals that look at aspects of identity – gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography, masculinity studies, sex and sexuality studies, feminist philosophy, feminist epistemology"

"Academic"
7
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Right, I've got it.
0
reply
BenWhitehair017
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
How in the world are they alt-right? Way to just devalue their work. The only way you could link that is that they rewrote a section of mein kampf in one of the papers and it actually got accepted. Shows what theyre exposing tbh
0
reply
Alexty28
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
They ain't alt-right.
0
reply
CTLeafez
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
"academic journals that look at aspects of identity – gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography, masculinity studies, sex and sexuality studies, feminist philosophy, feminist epistemology"

"Academic"
'fat studies'... I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume they aren't looking into the increased morbidity and mortality of heart disease and other poor diet-based diseases?

'Feminist geography' could be interesting tbf. Be interesting to see where Feminism is most needed in the world and then where there's the largest self-proclaimed Feminists populations.

I'd think you'd have the most Feminists in the western world while it is needed at the most basic level in the Middle East and Africa. (e.g. equal voting rights, counter-domestic abuse)
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
"academic journals that look at aspects of identity – gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography, masculinity studies, sex and sexuality studies, feminist philosophy, feminist epistemology"

"Academic"
They might be academic in a certain sense. Scientific for sure not. In fact, there is a student in Norway right now suing his university because the course lecturer admitted they are not interested in data in facts, but in ideology. The course was x studies (I think maybe x was gender).
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
Alt right? Nah, they were trolling.
0
reply
AngeryPenguin
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
"academic journals that look at aspects of identity – gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography, masculinity studies, sex and sexuality studies, feminist philosophy, feminist epistemology"

"Academic"
(Original post by Andrew97)
Alt right? Nah, they were trolling.
Not just trolling. They concocted a malicious, year-long hoax, trying to discredit academic journals by tricking them into publishing patently absurd and offensive "studies". No serious academic would stoop so low as to destroy their own reputations in order to stain those of reputable journals.
1
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
The basic problem with their stunt is that they didn't undertake a control to compare them against.

The issues which lead to lapses in academia like this are caused by a few trends within the industry, in particular:
- The "public or perish" culture - young academics in particular are heavily pressured to rush out as many publications as they can to keep their jobs and advance their career prospects, prioritising quantity over quality.
- Peer review is often not a well-paid job, especially at less prestigious journals, and so the quality of that review inevitably lapses.

And so you end up with a decent number of academics putting out rushed shoddy work, and a decent number of low-level journals without adequate peer reviewing standards to screen them out.

But here's the thing - this happens all across academia - across all disciplines. However, our hoaxers here didn't test all disciplines, or even a particularly wide range of them - they tested only the disciplines they wanted to discredit. Their hypothesis that things like gender studies have absurdly low standards remains unproven, because they haven't tried to get similarly shoddy papers published in similarly low-level Physics, History or Economics journals.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by AngeryPenguin)
Not just trolling. They concocted a malicious, year-long hoax, trying to discredit academic journals by tricking them into publishing patently absurd and offensive "studies". No serious academic would stoop so low as to destroy their own reputations in order to stain those of reputable journals.
"They concocted a malicious, year-long hoax, trying to discredit academic journals by tricking them into publishing patently absurd and offensive "studies"."

it worked!

And it wasn't a hoax - the goal wasn't to trick or tease or fool them for entertainment or humorous reasons. It was to uncover and expose the lax standards in some parts of academia, and how the system can be abused and manipulated for ideological gain.

If thats a hoax, then most panorama investigations/under cover journalistic work etc. is a hoax - which its not. Tricking someone and being decietful to uncover and expose the truth, is not a hoax.

The intent here.. maters.

---

as for the results. It will achieve nothing, sadly. The areas of academia who it was targetting are so entrenched into our university systems and our culture, that a few rougue academics doing this will mean nothing. Things will tick along as normal, and nothing will change, because public opinion on mass, will not be on the side of these 3 academics. All the universities will know that if they do anything to try and challenge or restrict or re-structure their gender studies etc. departments, they will suffer the wrath of the media.. so they won't dare.
1
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by AngeryPenguin)
Not just trolling. They concocted a malicious, year-long hoax, trying to discredit academic journals by tricking them into publishing patently absurd and offensive "studies". No serious academic would stoop so low as to destroy their own reputations in order to stain those of reputable journals.
How reputable is the journal if it will publish absurd and offensive studies? Should we not be more concerned that they will publish these studies, and how many other studies have not been subjected to an appropriate level of critical appraisal?
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by anarchism101)
The basic problem with their stunt is that they didn't undertake a control to compare them against.

The issues which lead to lapses in academia like this are caused by a few trends within the industry, in particular:
- The "public or perish" culture - young academics in particular are heavily pressured to rush out as many publications as they can to keep their jobs and advance their career prospects, prioritising quantity over quality.
- Peer review is often not a well-paid job, especially at less prestigious journals, and so the quality of that review inevitably lapses.

And so you end up with a decent number of academics putting out rushed shoddy work, and a decent number of low-level journals without adequate peer reviewing standards to screen them out.

But here's the thing - this happens all across academia - across all disciplines. However, our hoaxers here didn't test all disciplines, or even a particularly wide range of them - they tested only the disciplines they wanted to discredit. Their hypothesis that things like gender studies have absurdly low standards remains unproven, because they haven't tried to get similarly shoddy papers published in similarly low-level Physics, History or Economics journals.
Piffle.

They wrote articles which were total, arrant, nonsense by intention. They didn’t make any sense because deliberately made them so. And other academics in the “field” applauded them as serious contributions to the sum of human knowledge. THEIR work is total arrant nonsense too.

I don’t read much of the, utter, total, bollox produced by gender studies academics, because life is way too short. But whenever I have the misfortune to come across it, I realise, with sadness, that everyone involved with the entire discipline is wasting THEIR lives. The academics make a living out of it I guess, so there is that at least, but one feels for the students paying to study such academic faeces. They will look back in middle age on their wasted time at university, with deep regret. It is really sad, and wickedly evil on the part of the academics, exploiting them.

One of the spoof articles, much lauded by peers, argued that climate change is caused by the “ conceptual penis” and that when a man spreads his legs he is “raping the empty space around him.” It would be hilarious (actually it is hilarious!) were it not so close to the bone as to have been taken seriously in the first place...

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room...ender-studies/
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by generallee)
Piffle.

They wrote articles which were total, arrant, nonsense by intention. They didn’t make any sense because deliberately made them so. And other academics in the “field” applauded them as serious contributions to the sum of human knowledge. THEIR work is total arrant nonsense too.
All of their attempts were rejected by more prominent, well-regarded journals. They had to resort to more obscure journals, and even then they only got about a third through. That some peer-reviewers at low-quality journals missed that they were fake and let them slip through the gap is hardly "applauding them as serious contributions to the sum of human knowledge."

I don’t read much of the, utter, total, bollox produced by gender studies academics, because life is way too short. But whenever I have the misfortune to come across it, I realise, with sadness, that everyone involved with the entire discipline is wasting THEIR lives. The academics make a living out of it I guess, so there is that at least, but one feels for the students paying to study such academic faeces. They will look back in middle age on their wasted time at university, with deep regret. It is really sad, and wickedly evil on the part of the academics, exploiting them.

One of the spoof articles, much lauded by peers, argued that climate change is caused by the “ conceptual penis” and that when a man spreads his legs he is “raping the empty space around him.” It would be hilarious (actually it is hilarious!) were it not so close to the bone as to have been taken seriously in the first place...

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room...ender-studies/
Through all of this you haven't addressed my crucial point - they did not conduct a control. In other works, they're taking it for granted that a similar hoax attempt for journals in the hard sciences or the traditional humanities would fail and be weeded out by peer review (because if that's not the case, then the problem would be peer review standards across academia, not just in the fields they object to). This is an unjustified assumption - it's perfectly possible that a similar hoax could have fooled peer reviewers for similarly obscure Physics or Medical journals.

In fact, we've seen precisely that happen on occasion - 20 years ago, Andrew Wakefield's notorious "vaccines cause autism" fraud managed to get through peer review and get published at The Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.

Or maybe that's not entirely a fair comparison - after all, garbage as his study was, Wakefield's topic of choice was hardly a trivial or frivolous one. So has similarly trivial and silly-sounding nonsense managed to get through peer review in science journals? Yes - in 2007, a study (now recognised as nonsense) arguing that ovulating strippers earn more tips managed to get through peer review at a major evolutionary science journal.

There are academia-wide problems with excessive pressure to publish, and damaging incentive structures for journal editors and peer reviewers (reviewers are often badly paid or not paid at all, while editors are often paid according to the number of articles their journals publish). As the hoaxers conducted no experiments with other fields, they can draw no conclusions about the relative standards of "grievance studies" relative to those other fields.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by anarchism101)
All of their attempts were rejected by more prominent, well-regarded journals. They had to resort to more obscure journals, and even then they only got about a third through. That some peer-reviewers at low-quality journals missed that they were fake and let them slip through the gap is hardly "applauding them as serious contributions to the sum of human knowledge."



Through all of this you haven't addressed my crucial point - they did not conduct a control. In other works, they're taking it for granted that a similar hoax attempt for journals in the hard sciences or the traditional humanities would fail and be weeded out by peer review (because if that's not the case, then the problem would be peer review standards across academia, not just in the fields they object to). This is an unjustified assumption - it's perfectly possible that a similar hoax could have fooled peer reviewers for similarly obscure Physics or Medical journals.

In fact, we've seen precisely that happen on occasion - 20 years ago, Andrew Wakefield's notorious "vaccines cause autism" fraud managed to get through peer review and get published at The Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.

Or maybe that's not entirely a fair comparison - after all, garbage as his study was, Wakefield's topic of choice was hardly a trivial or frivolous one. So has similarly trivial and silly-sounding nonsense managed to get through peer review in science journals? Yes - in 2007, a study (now recognised as nonsense) arguing that ovulating strippers earn more tips managed to get through peer review at a major evolutionary science journal.

There are academia-wide problems with excessive pressure to publish, and damaging incentive structures for journal editors and peer reviewers (reviewers are often badly paid or not paid at all, while editors are often paid according to the number of articles their journals publish). As the hoaxers conducted no experiments with other fields, they can draw no conclusions about the relative standards of "grievance studies" relative to those other fields.
A control, even supposing it gave one a similar result ( a huge assumption imho) would only tell us that the other fields of academia pranked were infected by this same virus. The virus of knowingly writing and publishing total and utter [email protected] It wouldn’t invalidate the conclusion of this study, that you can argue that climate change is caused by a conceptual penis, and far from being laughed out of court, receive approbation from fellow “experts” in the field of conceptual penes as social constructs.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by generallee)
A control, even supposing it gave one a similar result ( a huge assumption imho)
No less huge than the assumption that it wouldn't.

would only tell us that the other fields of academia pranked were infected by this same virus.
No, it would tell us that there is a general problem with the peer review process in less prestigious journals.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by generallee)
A control, even supposing it gave one a similar result ( a huge assumption imho) would only tell us that the other fields of academia pranked were infected by this same virus. Th
Without a control its worthless in confirming your thesis.

This virus is poor peer reveiw. If other fields have similar problems it destroys your thesis that feminist and other bogey men fields are uniquely bad at letting crap get through. So having evidence that other fields do not have this problem is crucial for your argument.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Without a control its worthless in confirming your thesis.

This virus is poor peer reveiw. If other fields have similar problems it destroys your thesis that feminist and other bogey men fields are uniquely bad at letting crap get through.
Reminds me of a sporting analogy - in the 1980s, a guy named Carlos Kaiser managed to repeatedly hoax Brazilian football clubs into signing him, despite never playing a game. Few would argue that this meant Brazil had uniquely bad clubs - just that pre-internet scouting and background checking systems in general were pretty weak, and Kaiser happened to be Brazilian.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Following the government's announcement, do you think you will be awarded a fair grade this year?

Yes (408)
52.31%
No (372)
47.69%

Watched Threads

View All