Current Events > The Gender studies hoax - fake papers passing peer review

(+) Yeah! (+)

Romes187 posted...

I think I remember reading one of the papers was discussing potentially having privileged students talked over in class...and maybe chained to the seat (it was something strange like this) and the reviewer said they didn't think they went far enough in their recommendations....

Yeah read up on it again because what I remember is that the reviewers were very uncomfortable with it.
---

COVxy posted...

But that's just the thing. Publishing isn't a cake walk. It's a lot of time and effort with extremely hefty demands made by reviewers at each stage, at least in my field. My timecourse of publication attempts doesn't look too pretty:
https://imgur.com/aCDrebO

There's almost certainly field by field variation in the nature and rigor of peer review.

In math, papers take a while to publish, but it's mostly the process from "table accept" to "referee report" that takes the longest. Usually the subsequent revisions and referee back and forth is quicker.
---

PreacherBeelze posted...

From cold fusion, room temperature superconductivity, to gender studies.

lets not forget that time an article got published about how vaccines cause autism -_-
---

scar the 1 posted...

Yeah read up on it again because what I remember is that the reviewers were very uncomfortable with it.

Reading through the reviews, it seemed like only 1 reviewer took issue with it, but only took issue with it because it seemed too 'shamey' and that the authors needed to take more time to explain how shame could be overcome by these students while sitting in positions of discomfort.

Idk, to me, it seems to me based on reading these reviews that the articles are really judged and maintained in a way similar to philosophy, with attention being paid to internally consistent reasoning but very little to external validity. Reviewers of the dog park article simply didn't know what to do in the face of observational data.
---

Now, that isn't an issue in-and-of-itself, but an issue if the field is going to claim to be scientific. Just stick em in the philosophy or english departments.
---

COVxy posted...

Now, that isn't an issue in-and-of-itself, but an issue if the field is going to claim to be scientific. Just stick em in the philosophy or english departments.

100% agree except maybe just keep it to english

ITT: People don't know what "Peer Review" means

Romes187 posted...

Doesn't matter what department this happens in...definitely hurts the whole peer review industry...not that it wasn't already hurting.

Not really.

Peer review was "hurt" the moment it became an industry. Things like this have no real effect on it.

"Peer Review" in of itself doesn't mean anything, you can get any piece of research you want Peer Reviewed for about $200.

That's why if you look at any academic circles or serious discussion in research regardless of field, when people talk about research they don't say "This was peer reviewed" they say "This was peer reviewed by....." and say who it was, if they don't then everyone will bombard the with "Well then who peer reviewed it?"

Second to that, Peer Review doesn't mean "Peers agreed with the conclusions and the opinions of the person making the research." it means they checked the methodology and the science/logic/research adds up as legitimate.

So even if it's a credible Peer Review, that doesn't mean the conclusions are automatically justified. I.E If someone does research about how CO2 was really low during the Cretaceous Period but tempratures were really high, and his measurements, research, metholody, studying and reasoning for the figures he is presenting were accurate and solid. That would pass legitimate peer review.

Even if the guy said "Because of that, Man Climate Change isn't real!" that would have no effect or impact on the Peer Review of his research.

People who think Peer Review is a badge of honor or a defense of the opinions or goals of the people doing the research really don't "Get" what it actually is.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

That's why if you look at any academic circles or serious discussion in research regardless of field, when people talk about research they don't say "This was peer reviewed" they say "This was peer reviewed by....." and say who it was, if they don't then everyone will bombard the with "Well then who peer reviewed it?"

"The worst thing about jail...the worst thing about jail was da dementors!"
---

scar the 1 posted...

I've seen people contest the reputation of those journals, but I'm not in those fields so idk.

Probably to deflect from how questionable it would make these fields look otherwise.

Also, the hoax runners said in their announcement that 7 papers were accepted (4 published and 3 pending publication), 7 were still in consideration or being revised for resubmitting when they ended the hoax, and 6 were rejected as fatally flawed. They also received 4 invitations to peer-review other papers as a result of their own "exemplary scholarship."

I don't know if that counts as exaggerating the numbers of hoax papers published.

creativerealms posted...

OpenlyGator posted...

It sounds like the bar for accepted submissions needs to be raised if trolly fake subs are getting green lights.

They did get caught so the system works. Maybe it needs to be more watchful to catch them quicker.

Not really. They called off the hoax after a Twitter user who brings attention to weird or questionable studies called attention to the dog park study hoax, which caught the attention of the media. It was only then that people started to question whether or not the fictional author of the study actually existed.

And that's only that one specific hoax study. No one from the other journals ever caught on. Including the other six hoaxes that were accepted.
---

Esrac posted...

They also received 4 invitations to peer-review other papers as a result of their own "exemplary scholarship."

I've received plenty of invitations to peer review other papers, and I've published far less than these authors. It's in no way remarkable or unique to the field, and it really has very little to do with the quality of their work. Finding referees for a paper is hard.
---

feminist interpretative dance (especially with regard to the movements of the stars and their astrological significance)

That may be both the best and worst sentence ever constructed.
---

omega cookie posted...

feminist interpretative dance (especially with regard to the movements of the stars and their astrological significance)

That may be both the best and worst sentence ever constructed.

lol
---