Fake academic papers published to illustrate the shoddy standard of grievance social "sciences"

[UglyCasanova]

This is about people getting crap papers published just to pad their resume. And getting caught at it.

Fairly certain that’s not what it’s about. The authors of the fake papers aren’t trying to pass them off as real to pad resumes but rather to expose the shoddy standards in some of these fields in social sciences and it undermines the integrity of the rest of that journal's publications.

https://www.economist.com/science-a...s-takes-aim-at-social-sciences-nether-regions

In the eyes of the publishers of Gender, Place & Culture, an academic journal, Ms Wilson’s findings were worthy of the highest regard. They included them in a special selection of 12 papers to mark the journal’s 25th anniversary. There was just one small glitch. Ms Wilson, her institution, her study and her findings were all the creative brain-spawn of three writers, philosophers and self-styled “thinkers” hellbent on exposing what they see as a broken branch of sociology.​

This is what was selected by the paper as an outstanding entry to publish in their special anniversary edition. Whoops

“DOG parks are Petri dishes for canine ‘rape culture’,” wrote Helen Wilson, of the Portland Ungendering Research Initiative, in her study published in May this year. Her write-up describes how gender interactions in dog parks mirror the interactions and biases of human society. Female dogs, the paper said, are a relatively oppressed class compared with male dogs, and are subjected to threats of canine rape. It argued that the parallels with human society offered insights into how men might be trained out of sexual violence and bigotry. (Literally leashing men might be politically unfeasible, but perhaps metaphorically leashing them would help?)​

 

[senseamp]

Usual right wing trolling, this time to try to discredit science so they can peddle their bullshit as equivalent.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Usual right wing trolling, this time to try to discredit science so they can peddle their bullshit as equivalent.

This.

Have small bias find confirmation draw overly large conclusion. Climate gate!

 

[Zorba]

I personally agree that a lot of social science articles are poorly conceived, poorly executed, and poorly reviewed. It, along with health publications, also tend to abuse the hell out of statistics.

In grad school I had to do a lot of academic research on engineering and science papers (and have a few of my own published) and I had to do a little with social sciences papers. The comparison in quality is night and day between the two fields. Even in the science space though, there were a few journals I knew were low quality and got to point that I wouldn't even open the articles.

 

[realibrad]

I personally agree that a lot of social science articles are poorly conceived, poorly executed, and poorly reviewed. It, along with health publications, also tend to abuse the hell out of statistics.

In grad school I had to do a lot of academic research on engineering and science papers (and have a few of my own published) and I had to do a little with social sciences papers. The comparison in quality is night and day between the two fields. Even in the science space though, there were a few journals I knew were low quality and got to point that I wouldn't even open the articles.

Congrats, you are now a science denying conservative.

It seems silly that this type of thing happened, and people are lashing out saying that its a conservative reaction denying science. From what I see, its people calling out a field that needs to improve its standards.

 

[hal2kilo]

He is right about young minds being impressionable. It's why conservatives, much like my own parents, indoctrinate with religion at a young age.

Yep, first, and number one form of brain washing.

 

[hal2kilo]

Usual right wing trolling, this time to try to discredit science so they can peddle their bullshit as equivalent.

Replace BS with willful ignorance.

 

[IronWing]

The authors don't say which part of their papers were fake. Carrying out an acceptable analysis of forged data would likely make it through peer review in most fields. This type of fraud is difficult to root out. If their methods of analysis were ridiculous, then yes, peer review should have led to rejection regardless of data quality. If there was no data at all, then it wasn't science.

 

[senseamp]

There were prosperous enlightened societies who were hoodwinked by their conservatives to give up on science in favor of faith based learning. They didn't fare too well as a result.

 

[mect]

I know far too many people that went into research in the social sciences so that they could prove some aspect of their world view. I'm completely in agreement that much of the research published in these fields is suspect at best. This is why in any field, you never draw conclusions based on a single paper, or even a collection of papers by a single author, but by the collection of findings of the literature as a whole, with an eye on the level of consensus surrounding a subject. Peer review helps, but it is definitely a process that is getting watered down. With the competitive atmosphere surrounding publication numbers, coupled with increasing responsibilities and decreasing time for those contributing, the process is not as rigorous as it once was.

 

[Zorba]

I know far too many people that went into research in the social sciences so that they could prove some aspect of their world view. I'm completely in agreement that much of the research published in these fields is suspect at best. This is why in any field, you never draw conclusions based on a single paper, or even a collection of papers by a single author, but by the collection of findings of the literature as a whole, with an eye on the level of consensus surrounding a subject. Peer review helps, but it is definitely a process that is getting watered down. With the competitive atmosphere surrounding publication numbers, coupled with increasing responsibilities and decreasing time for those contributing, the process is not as rigorous as it once was.

There are also more publications than there once were and the less ones need content.

 

[woolfe9998]

Congrats, you are now a science denying conservative.

It seems silly that this type of thing happened, and people are lashing out saying that its a conservative reaction denying science. From what I see, its people calling out a field that needs to improve its standards.

Yes. The "hoaxers" here were fellow liberal academics. Like Brett Weinstein at Evergreen College. I think the liberals responding on this issue are unaware that when these criticisms come from within academia, it's almost always coming from liberals. There are conservatives sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots but that is not the same thing and not what happened here.

 

[woolfe9998]

I personally agree that a lot of social science articles are poorly conceived, poorly executed, and poorly reviewed. It, along with health publications, also tend to abuse the hell out of statistics.

In grad school I had to do a lot of academic research on engineering and science papers (and have a few of my own published) and I had to do a little with social sciences papers. The comparison in quality is night and day between the two fields. Even in the science space though, there were a few journals I knew were low quality and got to point that I wouldn't even open the articles.

Peer review in the field of public health is a total joke. Same with much of the social sciences, particularly with gender and ethnic studies. A clean up is in order.

 

[realibrad]

Yes. The "hoaxers" here were fellow liberal academics. Like Brett Weinstein at Evergreen College. I think the liberals responding on this issue are unaware that when these criticisms come from within academia, it's almost always coming from liberals. There are conservatives sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots but that is not the same thing and not what happened here.

Brett Weinstein is a conservative. That is why those students held him hostage. He has " problematic" beliefs.

 

[woolfe9998]

Brett Weinstein is a conservative. That is why those students held him hostage. He has " problematic" beliefs.

I understand what you mean here, but to avoid confusion on this point, Weinstein is a self-identified liberal, and not even a "classical liberal."

 

[realibrad]

I understand what you mean here, but to avoid confusion on this point, Weinstein is a self-identified liberal, and not even a "classical liberal."

Oh I know. I have been watching him, Peterson, Harris and enjoying it quite a bit. He is very far Left to any normal person.

 

[woolfe9998]

Oh I know. I have been watching him, Peterson, Harris and enjoying it quite a bit. He is very far Left to any normal person.

Yes, he and Harris are. Peterson is not a liberal.

 

[realibrad]

Yes, he and Harris are. Peterson is not a liberal.

I disagree there. I think had we been 5 years back, he would be considered a liberal politically.

 

[FIVR]

Imagine if OP knew that, for millennia, thousands upon thousands of schools had been teaching "academia" about their mystical eternal zombie king who is his own father. Imagine if OP knew that these schools still existed and were still accredited institutions. Imagine if he knew that many of his own favorite politicians went these schools, and still professed a believe in the eternal zombie king who is his own father....


Just imagine!

 

[woolfe9998]

I disagree there. I think had we been 5 years back, he would be considered a liberal politically.

Then you haven't listened to enough of him. At one point, after I was impressed with some of what he said in an interview, I spent hours listening to more interviews. There are dozens on Youtube. Whatever it is he claims to be, the man is a reactionary to the core. He's right about the abuses of the left in academia, but he's not a liberal. Not even close.

 

[realibrad]

Then you haven't listened to enough of him. At one point, after I was impressed with some of what he said in an interview, I spent hours listening to more interviews. There are dozens on Youtube. Whatever it is he claims to be, the man is a reactionary to the core. He's right about the abuses of the left in academia, but he's not a liberal. Not even close.

Interesting. Can you pm me why you think that?

 

[Greenman]

Imagine if OP knew that, for millennia, thousands upon thousands of schools had been teaching "academia" about their mystical eternal zombie king who is his own father. Imagine if OP knew that these schools still existed and were still accredited institutions. Imagine if he knew that many of his own favorite politicians went these schools, and still professed a believe in the eternal zombie king who is his own father....


Just imagine!

How many of those schools do you think would publicly funded? What if some of them actually turned out real scholars? What if it turned out the zombie king wasn't actually his own father and the story was hyperbole put out by his detractors?

 

[Chaotic42]

I personally agree that a lot of social science articles are poorly conceived, poorly executed, and poorly reviewed. It, along with health publications, also tend to abuse the hell out of statistics.

In grad school I had to do a lot of academic research on engineering and science papers (and have a few of my own published) and I had to do a little with social sciences papers. The comparison in quality is night and day between the two fields. Even in the science space though, there were a few journals I knew were low quality and got to point that I wouldn't even open the articles.

Yeah, I've run into some really terrible GIS papers in my time. The thresholds for peer review, acceptance, and even degree granting seem to be on a downward spiral.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Then you haven't listened to enough of him. At one point, after I was impressed with some of what he said in an interview, I spent hours listening to more interviews. There are dozens on Youtube. Whatever it is he claims to be, the man is a reactionary to the core. He's right about the abuses of the left in academia, but he's not a liberal. Not even close.

Not agreeing with socialist retarded academia professors doesnt equate someone to be the opposite political party.

I listen to all of what has been mentioned - each and every single one of them describe themselves as "classical liberal" and they definetly fit it.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yeah, I've run into some really terrible GIS papers in my time. The thresholds for peer review, acceptance, and even degree granting seem to be on a downward spiral.

Facts be damned. Science isnt about that anymore...it's all about feeeeeeelings.