Current Events > Two guys submit a hoax paper to a Gender Studies journal and it gets published

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mal_Fet posted...

That's not an abstract inference.

Proving the existence of something through observation of its effects is still empiricism.

From a mathematical model.

Do you think social sciences are anything besides exceptionally massive systems interacting with one another that escapes our current ability to mathematically model? Nothing indicates that a sufficiently complex model couldn't some day be made to account for the current problem of correlation.

Key word here is current. I'll totally level with you that at their point right now they are nowhere near the level of other scientific disciplines, hence my lack of regard for them. But structured inquiry in a topic needs to begin somewhere, and even the highly regarded STEM fields today went through their awkward teenage years in history. It's better than just sticking your head in the sand going, "LALALALA I'm not listening! This doesn't correspond to my world view! I can't incorporate differing views in order to continually validate my false dichotomy!"

I'll continue to chuckle and look at contempt at most things coming from that field. But I'm not arrogant enough to believe that somewhere amongst all the data don't lie tiny kernels of truth. It's beyond my current scope of expertise or interest to judge and I'll let humanity do its thing and sort it out.

To continue to crusade against it makes me believe you just have a victim complex.
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

From a mathematical model.

And that doesn't count as an observation, why?

Soviet_Poland posted...

Key word here is current. I'll totally level with you that at their point right now they are nowhere near the level of other scientific disciplines, hence my lack of regard for them. But structured inquiry in a topic needs to begin somewhere, and even the highly regarded STEM fields today went through their awkward teenage years in history.

Tell you what: as soon as someone comes up with a predictive conclusion derived from nothing more than feelings, then I'll take this argument seriously.

as it stands now though, people have tried to use feelings to explain the universe for longer than they have been using the scientific method of empiricism, therefore I hold no hope that it will ever happen.
---

IllegalAlien posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

IllegalAlien posted...

I will after I'm done programming a machine learning model to map attributes from disparate matrices of data to concept-level meta attributes :-)

Nice appeal to authority however (authority is society in this sentence, where you're appealing via economic viability; to spell it out...)

jk, I appreciate the low effort trolling and it helps keep this board alive damnit!

This is the most condescending troll attempt I've ever seen, well done.

Feelings are still not useful to make predictive conclusions, and I have many millenia of documentation to prove it.

Too scared to reply to the mod? it's okay child everything in the first sentence is actually literally what I've been working on lately https://github.com/moduIo/Morphobank

He won't reply to the mod cause Zanzen has been owning him in every post.
---

tag for later
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Peer review is supposed to hold a paper to the standard of the vein of academia and impose necessary universal standards, i.e. if you bring up Electrical Engineering you will need to conform to IEEE standards in those sections. Gender studies simply doesn't confirm to scientific method, and therefore shouldn't be associated with sciences at all. Methodology is non-existent. It would be one thing if it were really an offshoot of psych, but it isn't.

Again, you have a very high level vague understanding of peer review and the publication process, and this entire topic and the rebuttal is all about the nitty-gritty.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Tell you what: as soon as someone comes up with a predictive conclusion derived from nothing more than feelings, then I'll take this argument seriously.

as it stands now though, people have tried to use feelings to explain the universe for longer than they have been using the scientific method of empiricism, therefore I hold no hope that it will ever happen.

I'm not talking about "feelings" either. Obviously, for a mathematical model to be valid, it must mirror the theory (the phenomena in question), and the theory itself must be valid and mirror reality (whatever that may be).

I'm talking about a completely different scope with respect to judging any particular field, and in this case you have a severe case of myopia.
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Tell you what: as soon as someone comes up with a predictive conclusion derived from nothing more than feelings, then I'll take this argument seriously.

as it stands now though, people have tried to use feelings to explain the universe for longer than they have been using the scientific method of empiricism, therefore I hold no hope that it will ever happen.

I'm not talking about "feelings" either. Obviously, for a mathematical model to be valid, it must mirror the theory (the phenomena in question), and the theory itself must be valid and mirror reality (whatever that may be).

I'm talking about a completely different scope with respect to judging any particular field, and in this case you have a severe case of myopia.

You're just whooshing over him. Unless you're going to hive mind his point, you're just speaking liberal poppycock.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

You're just whooshing over him. Unless you're going to hive mind his point, you're just speaking liberal poppycock.

I think I just have a thing for futility.
---

Lmao at this topic

bvillebro posted...

Zanzenburger posted...

Keep in mind a reputable journal takes 3-8 months to review, accept, and publish a study. Meanwhile, what's Cogent's timeline?

if that, typically its on the latter end it seems.

and pray to god you dont get R&Rs

this being a pay to play journal kinda makes this topic seem silly

the authors did it more to show a weakness within those journals.

I have a feeling that people are more or less arguing against Mal fet rather then what the authors said they wanted to do. It wasn't to take down gender studies(but to expose a weakness) along with a problem within open access publishing. seems like people are taking to the extremes and constructing strawman arguments.
Like sokal didn't want to take down the post modernist left in academia, just get them to stop using the phrases from fields they don't understand/know how to use correctly/whatever to lend credence to their own work.
---

COVxy posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Peer review is supposed to hold a paper to the standard of the vein of academia and impose necessary universal standards, i.e. if you bring up Electrical Engineering you will need to conform to IEEE standards in those sections. Gender studies simply doesn't confirm to scientific method, and therefore shouldn't be associated with sciences at all. Methodology is non-existent. It would be one thing if it were really an offshoot of psych, but it isn't.

Again, you have a very high level vague understanding of peer review and the publication process, and this entire topic and the rebuttal is all about the nitty-gritty.

Well I don't frequently talk to many academics who would disagree. Are you saying you do?
---

I'm saying that the statement you provided was more or less irrelevant to the central issue of the topic.
---

Zanzenburger posted...

Actually, feelings can be operationalized using various valid/reliable scales that, when used appropriately, do have predictive validity.

Feeling polls are used in politics especially. Though not 100% foolproof, a lot of political decisions that are made, such as which person to rally behind for office or which measures to bring to a vote in the legislature are determined through "feeling" polls from the public. Samples of those feelings are extrapolated and compared with prior feeling/voting correlations to predict the chance that a particular candidate would get elected or measure passing committee.

I don't believe anyone would claim that feelings polls are an example of empirical experimentation...
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

I'm not talking about "feelings" either. Obviously, for a mathematical model to be valid, it must mirror the theory (the phenomena in question), and the theory itself must be valid and mirror reality (whatever that may be).

Ok, and I'm still waiting for the explanation for why math doesn't count as empirical evidence.

Bear in mind that you're supposed to be arguing that the electric field cannot be proven empirically
---

COVxy posted...

I'm saying that the statement you provided was more or less irrelevant to the central issue of the topic.

That anything can be published in gender studies?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Ok, and I'm still waiting for the explanation for why math doesn't count as empirical evidence.

It does. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I'm saying it also extends to social sciences that rely on correlation. The only difference is relative power.

I was just trying to point out you were making an arbitrary distinction about "empiricism". There is a lot of philosophical discussion about the nature of empiricism, and I can't be certain what definition you're operating under here. Technically speaking, there is knowledge we derive beyond just our senses. Also, our senses can lie to us. You aren't humoring my attempts at trying to explain any nuance here, so I gave up trying to explain it to you. Just because you can't see, taste, touch, hear, or smell an electric field doesn't mean it doesn't exist (and that isn't what I was implying. Do you think I'm an idiot?). But mathematics strictly speaking isn't one of our "senses." Unless you include rationality and higher order thinking as a sense, but then by that definition literally any academic discipline would constitute "empirical." In a way, you supported the "empirical nature" of gender studies, lmao.

For what it is worth, I think the other guy you were talking to was equivocating "empirical" as well, so this is just semantics. I have a feeling your image of me grossly misrepresents what I'm standing for here.

edit: added some to my post.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

COVxy posted...

I'm saying that the statement you provided was more or less irrelevant to the central issue of the topic.

That anything can be published in gender studies?

You've missed the point.
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

It does. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I'm saying it also extends to social sciences that rely on correlation.

Using a mathematical proof as evidence is not a correlation...

Soviet_Poland posted...

I was just trying to point out you were making an arbitrary distinction about "empiricism". There is a lot of philosophical discussion about the nature of empiricism, and I can't be certain what definition you're operating under here. Technically speaking, there is knowledge we derive beyond just our senses. Also, our senses can lie to us. You aren't humoring my attempts at trying to explain any nuance here, so I gave up trying to explain it to you. Just because you can't see, taste, touch, hear, or smell an electric field doesn't mean it doesn't exist (and that isn't what I was implying. Do you think I'm an idiot?). But mathematics strictly speaking isn't one of our "senses." Unless you include rationality and higher order thinking as a sense, but then by that definition literally any academic discipline would constitute "empirical." In a way, you supported the "empirical nature" of gender studies, lmao.

We can observe the mathematical processes used in the proof of the electrical field, were you to illustrate each step with visible quantities. That's why it still counts as sensory, and muh feels doesn't.
---

Social sciences don't obey the scientific method and Gender/Ethnic studies basically only exist for virtue signalling and to draw affirmative action mascots to your campus.

Look at this guy. His is _____ . Very ____. He majors in being ______. He is encouraged on a daily basis to be as _____ as possible and only think about _____ things. He gets a 4.0 in ______ ness. Clap or you are racist/homophobic.

Soviet_Poland posted...

Right. And as fields develop, so too do their models.

Let me make this very straight. Any sort of concept in gender studies (or any social science, or other discipline) that does not attempt to create a falsifiable model, or at the very least cannot apply a statistical analysis to the comparison of different groups is not scientific.

It might be prospective, or subject to interpretation. You can have structured discussion within these topics. English class is a perfect example. A lot of students struggle with it, seemingly lost in the sea of subjectivity when they fail to operationalize very tangible concepts, but it's a skill like any other.

English isn't a science, and neither is gender studies, as neither is empirical.

Soviet_Poland posted...

Also stop bringing up "muh feels". No one is saying that you moron.

Besides IllegalAlien, you mean?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Besides IllegalAlien, you mean?

I mean, he tried to relay some very basic philosophy of science to you and you completely brushed it off as "gibberish".
---

COVxy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Besides IllegalAlien, you mean?

I mean, he tried to relay some very basic philosophy of science to you and you completely brushed it off as "gibberish".

Anyone who seriously asks why empirical observations are more valuable than feelings when trying to explain the natural world is not a very good student of philosophy.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

English isn't a science, and neither is gender studies, as neither is empirical.

I'm not saying English is a science. Seriously, do you selectively read things and try and react to the most absurd possible explanation?

I just said topics in gender studies that aren't falsifiable aren't scientific. Those are like English or Philosophy that just try to reason things out.

But it's an interdisciplinary field, so the questions that arise from the more sociological side of things can have the scientific method applied. There will likely be overlap in psychology and physiology when you try and delineate things like gender versus sex. Hell, you could even invoke embryology to see if there are biological correlates to sex development/differentiation and gender identification. These things can be looked at scientifically.

So you can't just write off the entire fucking field, because you're nit picking the softer side of it to push some shitty fucking political agenda. You're either an idiot, or incredibly disingenuous.
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

English isn't a science, and neither is gender studies, as neither is empirical.

I'm not saying English is a science. Seriously, do you selectively read things and try and react to the most absurd possible explanation?

I just said topics in gender studies that aren't falsifiable aren't scientific. Those are like English or Philosophy that just try to reason things out.

But it's an interdisciplinary field, so the questions that arise from the more sociological side of things can have the scientific method applied. There will likely be overlap in psychology and physiology when you try and delineate things like gender versus sex. Hell, you could even invoke embryology to see if there are biological correlates to sex development/differentiation and gender identification. These things can be looked at scientifically.

So you can't just write off the entire fucking field, because you're nit picking the softer side of it to push some shitty fucking political agenda. You're either an idiot, or incredibly disingenuous.

Mal's response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yX_1gJ_51M
---

Mal_Fet posted...

COVxy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Besides IllegalAlien, you mean?

I mean, he tried to relay some very basic philosophy of science to you and you completely brushed it off as "gibberish".

Anyone who seriously asks why empirical observations are more valuable than feelings when trying to explain the natural world is not a very good student of philosophy.

This topic sucks and you should feel bad.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Soviet_Poland posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

English isn't a science, and neither is gender studies, as neither is empirical.

I'm not saying English is a science. Seriously, do you selectively read things and try and react to the most absurd possible explanation?

I just said topics in gender studies that aren't falsifiable aren't scientific. Those are like English or Philosophy that just try to reason things out.

But it's an interdisciplinary field, so the questions that arise from the more sociological side of things can have the scientific method applied. There will likely be overlap in psychology and physiology when you try and delineate things like gender versus sex. Hell, you could even invoke embryology to see if there are biological correlates to sex development/differentiation and gender identification. These things can be looked at scientifically.

So you can't just write off the entire fucking field, because you're nit picking the softer side of it to push some shitty fucking political agenda. You're either an idiot, or incredibly disingenuous.

Mal's response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yX_1gJ_51M

Hahahahahaha
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

I'm not saying English is a science. Seriously, do you selectively read things and try and react to the most absurd possible explanation?

I just said topics in gender studies that aren't falsifiable aren't scientific. Those are like English or Philosophy that just try to reason things out.

But it's an interdisciplinary field, so the questions that arise from the more sociological side of things can have the scientific method applied. There will likely be overlap in psychology and physiology when you try and delineate things like gender versus sex. Hell, you could even invoke embryology to see if there are biological correlates to sex development/differentiation and gender identification. These things can be looked at scientifically.

So you can't just write off the entire fucking field, because you're nit picking the softer side of it to push some shitty fucking political agenda. You're either an idiot, or incredibly disingenuous.

I think you're conflating two different things I've said in this topic. Here's the claims I've made:

1) The state of gender studies in academia is little more than a car fire and is being driven by pseudo-intellectual Marxists.

2) Empiricism is a way better than feelings for learning about the nature of the universe

The second one got thrown in there after IllegalAlien got triggered by one of my posts, but don't take that to mean I believe Gender Studies as a concept is anti-scientific. I am saying that it's being headed by a lot of very un-scientific people, but don't presume I'm saying that Gender Studies is based entirely on feelings; I never said that, k?
---

Alright, let's take a step back here.

@COVxy, let's try and identify the location of the lesion.

I'm going to guess Mammilary bodies. The ophthalmoplegia explains the lack of ability to read, and there would be confabulation.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

but don;t take that to mean I believe Gender Studies as a concept is anti-scientific. I am saying that it's being headed by a lot of very un-scientific people, but don't presume I'm saying that Gender STudies is based entirely on feelings; I never said that, k?

This is an important distinction to make. Thank you.

I can't say I necessarily agree with the Marxist thing, but I'm not involved in the field so I have no thoughts about that.
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

This is an important distinction to make. Thank you.

I can't say I necessarily agree with the Marxist thing, but I'm not involved in the field so I have no thoughts about that.

I've taken two different gender studies courses and both involved studying Karl Marx. Coincidence? Maybe?

But if you know anything about Marxism and his theories regarding the class struggle, it's obvious how gender studies, race studies, and really any field comprised of modern SJWs going on about privilege (haves) and marginalized groups (have-nots) are heavily grounded in Marxism.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

I've taken two different gender studies courses and both involved studying Karl Marx. Coincidence? Maybe?

But if you know anything about Marxism and his theories regarding the class struggle, it's obvious how gender studies, race studies, and really any field comprised of modern SJWs going on about privilege (haves) and marginalized groups (have-nots) are heavily grounded in Marxism.

I mean were the tones of the class strictly grounded in Marxist ideas? Or was it just merely setting up the context of marginalized groups?

I can understand a class like that going over a survey of relevant history and that's different than pushing that as an agenda, but I'll be honest--I haven't had to take a gender studies class, so I don't know.

I would just interpret that as face value, not dogma. *shrug*
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

I mean were the tones of the class strictly grounded in Marxist ideas? Or was it just merely setting up the context of marginalized groups?

No, they'd frequently cite Marx and his contemporaries in any case of class inequality or income inequality. The last class I took had a chapter that was a brief biography of Marx's life.

Suffice to say, I'm really skeptical that the similarity between Marxism and the academic left is just aesthetic.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

No, they'd frequently cite Marx and his contemporaries in any case of class inequality or income inequality. The last class I took had a chapter that was a brief biography of Marx's life.

Suffice to say, I'm really skeptical that the similarity between Marxism and the academic left is just aesthetic.

Fair enough. I went ahead and read some opinion pieces of people who took gender studies and have criticisms of their field. Certainly softer than I had presumed the field to be. I thought it was more rooted in sociology, rather than just as a critique of every existing institution for the sake of critique.

I can see how that might lead to an echo chamber for themselves. Until I'm exposed to more perspectives, I'll refrain from any conclusions. Like I said, I've never taken any GS classes.

And not that I had any strong opinion about the field to begin with, but I don't think it even qualifies as social science. I say that because my undergraduate was in psychology, and my degree certainly did not emphasize subjectivity in research. Quite the opposite, and I'd argue my department did a better job of teaching research methods than my bio/chem/physics classes ever did at the undergraduate level.
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

And not that I had any strong opinion about the field to begin with, but I don't think it even qualifies as social science. I say that because my undergraduate was in psychology, and my degree certainly did not emphasize subjectivity in research. Quite the opposite, and I'd argue my department did a better job of teaching research methods than my bio/chem/physics classes ever did at the undergraduate level.

I definitely wouldn't knock psychology for being soft. It has more solid research methods than most would think.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

I don't believe anyone would claim that feelings polls are an example of empirical experimentation...

Alright then, let's move away from politics and go into my area of expertise. For an example, let's take a look at the NSSE, or the National Survey of Student Engagement.

http://nsse.indiana.edu/

From the website:
Through its student survey, The College Student Report, NSSE annually collects information at hundreds of four-year colleges and universities about first-year and senior students' participation in programs and activities that institutions provide for their learning and personal development. The results provide an estimate of how undergraduates spend their time and what they gain from attending college.

The entire purpose of this survey is to use student attitudes and behaviors towards college engagement to predict their success within college. It asks questions about not only what they do in college, but how they feel about the things they do in college and how they feel their college has helped them as a student as a way to measure how successful they will be.

The survey is nationally reputable and has some of the most rigorous validity and reliability tests in the entire field:

http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/psychometric_portfolio.cfm

As part of NSSE's commitment to transparency as well as continuous improvement, we routinely assess the quality of our survey and resulting data, and we embrace our responsibility to share the results with the higher education community. This Psychometric Portfolio is a framework for presenting our studies of the validity, reliability, and other indicators of quality of NSSE's data, including analysis of data subsets defined by a variety of student and institutional characteristics. It serves higher education leaders, researchers, and professionals who have an interest in using NSSE data and trusting their results.

Within the portfolio, each study is described in a brief technical report that includes research questions, data, methods, results, selected references, and more. When available, complete reports and research papers are provided for studies that have been presented at conferences and published in journals and magazines.

The survey has years of empirical data to prove its response process validity, content validity, construct validity, concurrent validity, known groups validity, consequential validity, and most important to this topic, predictive validity.

http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/validity.cfm

Predictive validity is the extent to which a score on a scale or test predicts scores on some criterion measure in expected ways. This research focuses on using NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement)
responses to predict student academic success. The analysis is based on 16,630 Indiana University -
Bloomington first-year beginner students and seniors who completed the NSSE survey administered from 2006-2012. Logistic regression and linear regression on student background and pre-college information, financial aid, previous college academic performance, NSSE Benchmarks and individual NSSE items were conducted to predict academic success defined as: 1) first-year students’ fall-to-fall retention and end-of-first-year cumulative GPA, 2) seniors number of terms taken to degree completion and 4-year graduation. Results show that certain student characteristics and earlier achievement are indicative of college success with higher levels of student engagement contributing to the models.

The NSSE is used by many colleges as a way to find out which students are likely to be more successful than other students, and is often used to award scholarships, provide internships, provide additional tutoring resources, determine at-risk students, and often used by third parties to calculate college rankings.

Mal_Fet posted...

Tell you what: as soon as someone comes up with a predictive conclusion derived from nothing more than feelings, then I'll take this argument seriously.

As you have asked, this is a concrete example of a survey that uses "feelings" through empirical experimentation for predictive measures.
---

IllegalAlien posted...

This topic sucks and you should feel bad.

Eh, I've found the discourse in this topic to be rather intellectually stimulating.

It sure beats the monotony of my job right now and lets me flex the scholarly muscle as I try to backup my claims.

Not the worst topic ever, despite Mal over here attempting to take a study meant to criticize pay-per-publish journals and distorting it as a criticism of gender studies.
---

@Zanzenburger posted...

As you have asked, this is a concrete example of a survey that uses "feelings" through empirical experimentation for predictive measures.

Just going by what you've posted here, it doesn't look like the NSSE measures students' feelins so much as it looks at how actively engaged a student is in their university. A survey asking you whether you met with an advisor or how many academic functions you've attended isn't an emotional measurement. I'm not seeing any question in the survey similar to "does long division make you happy or sad".

Suffice to say the NSSE seems a lot more empirical than emotional. The survey clearly deals with facts more than feelings.
---

Did you look at the whole thing? I am on my phone so I can't post examples right now, but a lot of the sections ask students specifically how they feel their university is meeting their needs in various areas.

That is a self report measure of feeling, as there is no concrete way to objectively measure a person's personal satisfaction with something.
---

Zanzenburger posted...

Did you look at the whole thing? I am on my phone so I can't post examples right now, but a lot of the sections ask students specifically how they feel their university is meeting their needs in various areas.

What you said here ^

and here v

The entire purpose of this survey is to use student attitudes and behaviors towards college engagement to predict their success within college. It asks questions about not only what they do in college, but how they feel about the things they do in college and how they feel their college has helped them as a student as a way to measure how successful they will be.

doesn't match up with what your source says the survey is about:

Through its student survey, The College Student Report, NSSE annually collects information at hundreds of four-year colleges and universities about first-year and senior students' participation in programs and activities that institutions provide for their learning and personal development. The results provide an estimate of how undergraduates spend their time and what they gain from attending college.

Asking students what they are doing with their time is not in any way asking them to report their feelings, regardless of whether the answers are self-reported or not.

All the NSSE seems to determine is that students who spend more time (an empirical unit or measure) in academic engagements tend to do better in school. If there's a part of the survey that's to do with gauging student's feelings, then I'm not seeing it from what you've shown. And if they do, it must be a really insignificant part of the survey because after I looked it up, all I could find about it is that all it takes into account is how many academic activities a student participates in.
---

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1310374692391699&id=144132509015929

On February 17 NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies received a submission entitled ’The conceptual penis as a social construct’ in the manuscript system of our journal. After the routine technical check of the manuscript, the article was assigned to us, the editors. After having reviewed the text we rejected the article as unsuitable on the grounds that the content was incomprehensible. In short, it was nonsense. The reject message was sent to the authors on April 7. All submissions rejected in the editorial manager of Taylor & Francis are part of an auto-generated transfer system which suggests alternative venues for publication. In this case, Cogent Social Sciences was suggested. This is described as a multidisciplinary, open journal platform for the rapid dissemination of peer-reviewed research across all disciplines. It is an open access platform where you pay ’what you want’ for publishing your article. The article was published in Cogent Social Sciences on May 19. We were shocked to see the article online since we, without any doubt whatsoever, had rejected the article.
Beyond the immoral bogus behaviour of the two authors, Lindsay and Boghossian, we are also seriously concerned about this orchestrated attack on Gender Studies in particular, and Social Sciences and Humanities in general. On investigating the activity of the authors, we note that they appear to regularly retweet quotations from authors and studies taken out of context, as if to discredit them. This behaviour says a lot about the authors but nothing about Gender Studies. We naturally condemn this behaviour, but we are also concerned about the quality control of ‘pay for publish’ platforms. This is probably the core issue which has been highlighted in this hoax scandal.
The editorial team of Norma - Lucas Gottzén, Ulf Mellström, Marinette Grimbeek, Jeff Hearn, Raewyn Connell, and Ann-Dorte Christensen
---

Balrog0 posted...

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1310374692391699&id=144132509015929

On February 17 NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies received a submission entitled ’The conceptual penis as a social construct’ in the manuscript system of our journal. After the routine technical check of the manuscript, the article was assigned to us, the editors. After having reviewed the text we rejected the article as unsuitable on the grounds that the content was incomprehensible. In short, it was nonsense. The reject message was sent to the authors on April 7. All submissions rejected in the editorial manager of Taylor & Francis are part of an auto-generated transfer system which suggests alternative venues for publication. In this case, Cogent Social Sciences was suggested. This is described as a multidisciplinary, open journal platform for the rapid dissemination of peer-reviewed research across all disciplines. It is an open access platform where you pay ’what you want’ for publishing your article. The article was published in Cogent Social Sciences on May 19. We were shocked to see the article online since we, without any doubt whatsoever, had rejected the article.
Beyond the immoral bogus behaviour of the two authors, Lindsay and Boghossian, we are also seriously concerned about this orchestrated attack on Gender Studies in particular, and Social Sciences and Humanities in general. On investigating the activity of the authors, we note that they appear to regularly retweet quotations from authors and studies taken out of context, as if to discredit them. This behaviour says a lot about the authors but nothing about Gender Studies. We naturally condemn this behaviour, but we are also concerned about the quality control of ‘pay for publish’ platforms. This is probably the core issue which has been highlighted in this hoax scandal.
The editorial team of Norma - Lucas Gottzén, Ulf Mellström, Marinette Grimbeek, Jeff Hearn, Raewyn Connell, and Ann-Dorte Christensen

Xeno14 posted...

https://areomagazine.com/2017/05/21/sokal-affair-2-0-penis-envy-addressing-its-critics/

In stark contradiction to the criticism above, many defenders of gender studies have claimed that Cogent Social Sciences is widely known to be a bad journal and more reputable ones would not have taken it seriously. The problem with that is that it is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), ProQuest Social Science Journals, the British Library, Cabell’s International and many more of the largest indices. It is not highlighted as a problem in the much-relied upon Beall’s list of predatory journals and was recommended to Lindsay and Boghossian by the NORMA journal. It is part of the highly-regarded Taylor & Francis Group which confirms that Cogent offers thorough scholarly peer review and has all the “traditional values and high standards associated with Taylor & Francis and Routledge at its core.”

---

Think very hard to yourself why the message you want to hear is so easy and comprehensible, and why the one you don't seems so complex and hard to understand.
---

We've already talked about that post, though. You just ended up saying that I was obviously biased because of my sources, and when I said the journal was obviously bad because of its peer review practices -- which are NOT up to the "high standards associated with Taylor & Francis," despite being published by them -- I think you ignored me and went on to argue about that student survey. Maybe you did respond and I missed it, though.

In any case, I'm just using this to reiterate my first point, which is that the paper was rejected without comment at one location and then accepted without revision at another. Anyone who knows how academic publishin' works learns everything they need to know from that.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

This is actually pretty funny

---

COVxy posted...

Think very hard to yourself why the message you want to hear is so easy and comprehensible, and why the one you don't seems so complex and hard to understand.

Think very hard to yourself about why the answer you want to hear requires so many mental gymnastics and ignoring facts like "the journal was considered to be reputable" while the answer you don't want to hear is clear and straightforward.
---

Balrog0 posted...

We've already talked about that post, though. You just ended up saying that I was obviously biased because of my sources, and when I said the journal was obviously bad because of its peer review practices

Obviously the journal has bad review practices. That is the point.

Balrog0 posted...

In any case, I'm just using this to reiterate my first point, which is that the paper was rejected without comment at one location and then accepted without revision at another. Anyone who knows how academic publishin' works learns everything they need to know from that.

This would be a really good argument if I ever said "there doesn't exist a gender studies journal that has standards. "
---

Balrog0 posted...

In any case, I'm just using this to reiterate my first point, which is that the paper was rejected without comment at one location and then accepted without revision at another. Anyone who knows how academic publishin' works learns everything they need to know from that.

it wasn't accepted without revision according to the authors. trying to find the website of an interview from the authors, but minor changes were made to it
---

Mal_Fet posted...

COVxy posted...

Think very hard to yourself why the message you want to hear is so easy and comprehensible, and why the one you don't seems so complex and hard to understand.

Think very hard to yourself about why the answer you want to hear requires so many mental gymnastics and ignoring facts like "the journal was considered to be reputable" while the answer you don't want to hear is clear and straightforward.

The funny thing is that, in reality, the simplest answer overall is that it's one of the many predatory journals that exist across all disciplines.

You just think it's a complex answer because it doesn't jive with your preconceived notions.
---

dinguses (dingii) are a social construct!!! This is awesome XD XD XD
---

Kinda a remind me of Belle Knox, the pornstar who was a useless gender studies major until she did porn.
---