trying to sneak a garbage paper into a journal is one way to evaluate its value, but for a full picture you would also want to consider the best papers that journal publishes, or simply consider the worst papers that weren’t submitted as hoaxes (to your knowledge).

I just saw a tweet-thread arguing that this hoax does in fact show the latter:

I think it’s more intellectually honest to engage with the text already put forward in the field than attempting to fake such text, even if it is just an attention grabbing stunt; I mean you could publish a terrible physics or chemistry paper in a second rate journal without disproving the utility of these fields.

New Rule: Every Fucking Time someone tries to pull this “humanities are bullshit because they publish papers lacking rigor” crap they are required to include “just like The Lancet when it published Andrew Wakefield’s MMR study” in their subhead.

No gender studies journal has contributed to the global reemergence of measles for want of fact-checking.

I’m sure you’ll enjoy this fresh serving of Schadenfreude then

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s