• MindForged
    476
    I think that what this little exercise demonstrates, is that in some of the more politicized academic subjects anything will likely be accepted for publication in the journals, provided only that the paper's politics are perceived to be correct. Which arguably does tell us something about the academic standards of the subjects in question.yazata

    As I said above, you're aptly showing the people pushing this are the ones out to make a political point and skew things through the lens of their own biases. Poor academic material happens in every field, yes including outright fraud, and happens even in major journals (some of the things that have made it into Nature ...). There are many people who actively try to get such fraudulent material into journals of test them, and with the publish-or-perish culture in academia, it's completely expected that some amount of it gets through.

    But you an OP don't infer you, you make it out to be an overtly political problem and thus you look foolish to anyone who keeps an eye on Retraction Watch and who is in academia. See my last post for a link showing how in Computer Science some guys were able to develop a bot that got hundreds of fake papers on nonsense into CS journals. Is that proof Computer Science will accept anything "provided the paper's politics are perceived to be correct"? But what I suspect you will answer is that CS isn't politicized while feminist philosophy is (meaning: it's not your politics) and so you don't care about the politics there to the extent that you'll ever mention it. This isn't about the junk being published, you just don't care for the discipline is my guess.

    As I said, these complaints are always more telling about the person's own politics and biases than it is about the general quality of the paper.
  • ssu
    602
    See my last post for a link showing how in Computer Science some guys were able to develop a bot that got hundreds of fake papers on nonsense into CS journals. Is that proof Computer Science will accept anything "provided the paper's politics are perceived to be correct"?MindForged
    What it shows is that Computer Science journals also have lax publishing requirements or standards. Hence basically this is a question of a general problem in the World of Academia. Hence just to sideline the success of getting nonsense published as a politically motivated hitjob to certain disciplines doesn't refute the facts. Of course some might (and will) use it to push their political views and/or agenda, but the basic fact still is there. The layman just can notice the absurdity of a statement like "dog parks are petri dishes for canine ‘rape culture’", but have difficulties to understand total nonsense in CS journals... as even an exceptionally good and informative article can look like jibberish to the ordinary person.

    The Peer review system should work, but obviously in todays academic life has it's problems. And perhaps the reason is that the whole academia has indeed become such a massive industry that high standards simply cannot be maintained everywhere.
  • StreetlightX
    3.1k
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/bogus-homeopathy-data-published-in-top-journal-sparks-outcry-facepalms/

    "Editors at a respected scientific journal are reconsidering their decision to publish a study, which claims that a homeopathic dilution of poison oak can reduce pain in rats, after online critics pointed out that the study is rife with bogus, sloppy, and low-quality data. The study—titled “Ultra-diluted Toxicodendron pubescens attenuates pro-inflammatory cytokines and ROS-mediated neuropathic pain in rats”—was published September 10 in Scientific Reports, an open-access journal run by the Nature Publishing Group".

    Better shut down science before its too late.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment