Account Share

 

Thread by @gwenckatz: "Sigh. Just in case you need another reason to roll your eyes out of your head, some professors think "academic grievance studies" (read: rac […]"

19 tweets, 5 min read, 12,399 views
Sigh. Just in case you need another reason to roll your eyes out of your head, some professors think "academic grievance studies" (read: race and gender studies) are ruining scholarship, so to prove it, they published a bunch of hoax papers.

areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/aca…
I'm sure I don't need to explain why this is bullshit, but in case you don't feel like reading their whole article (which is smart of you), I present: Why This Is Bullshit.
First: They wrote 20 hoax papers. All 20 got rejected by all the top journals. Just seven managed to get published by obscure, less reputable journals. Sounds like academia is doing a fine job weeding out hoaxes from real research.
Second: Anyone could have told you that there are problems with the peer review process, namely that peer reviewers are overworked and unpaid. So yes, bad research slips through. This is true in all fields. But their conclusion isn't "pay peer reviewers."
Third: At the very most, this is an indictment of the editorial standards of those particular journals. It says absolutely nothing about any of the real research done by other people and published in other journals (or even published in the same journals).
Fourth: They didn't bother submitting any hoax papers in non-"academic grievance" fields, so they have no control. There is no reason to think you're more likely to publish a hoax paper in a racial studies journal than, say, a physics journal.
Fifth: Bad research gets published all the time. In all kinds of journals. And always has. Feast your eyes on some of the "real" science that has been done in "real" fields.

Corporations just straight-up hire professors to produce pro-monopoly research, but no, that's not the problem with academia. Gender studies is the problem.

propublica.org/article/these-…
The difference, of course, being that all this bad research SUPPORTS the status quo, so it passes without comment. But as soon as a field of study starts CRITIQUING the status quo, then suddenly bad research is a huge problem. What a coincidence.
Sixth: This. Their "study" is itself bad research, ergo we can throw it, and its conclusions, out on its ear.

Seventh: Yes, academia is predicated on the base assumption that everyone involved is operating in good faith, and it tends to break down when someone just straight-up makes shit up. How is that a fault of academia? How is that a fault of anyone but the hoaxers?
Conclusion: This hoax doesn't prove anything except that the hoaxers are trolls. Thank you for your time. Here are some bear cubs.
P.S. About bad actors: They want to imply that, because they were able to publish junk papers, these fields are overrun with junk papers. But even if you accept that these fields are unusually vulnerable to bad actors (which I don't), that doesn't prove such actors are present.
If bad actors and junk papers were really overrunning the field, you could prove it by, you know, pointing out those papers and demonstrating the flaws in their research. It would be a hell of a lot easier than writing and trying to publish 20 fake papers.
But they never actually engage with the data of ANY of these supposedly bad papers. They just point to them--just 3 or 4 examples--and go "look, it's obviously ridiculous because it's feminist and constructivist and stuff!"
And, not to put too fine a point on it, the supposed junk papers that prove that we need to throw out the entire fields of race and gender studies are "Men in all-male spaces try to out-macho each other..."

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10…
...And "White people who don't get their way throw tantrums like spoiled babies."

I take it the authors don't read the news.

libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/v…
They haven't proven that race and gender studies are overrun with bad actors because the only bad actors they've shown to be present are themselves.
I don't have a soundcloud, but I did contribute to an anthology of real scientists giving authors advice about how to make their novels scientifically accurate. So if you write sci-fi, that's a thing you should check out.

amazon.com/Putting-Scienc…
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.
This content can be removed from Twitter at anytime, get a PDF archive by mail!
This is a Premium feature, you will be asked to pay $30.00/year
for a one year Premium membership with unlimited archiving.
Don't miss anything from @gwenckatz,
subscribe and get alerts when a new unroll is available!
Did Thread Reader help you today?
Support me: I'm a solo developer! Read more about the story
Become a 💎 Premium member ($30.00/year) and get exclusive features!
Too expensive?
Make a small donation instead. Buy me a coffee ($5) or help for the server cost ($10):
Donate with 😘 Paypal or  Become a Patron 😍 on Patreon.com
Trending hashtags
Did Thread Reader help you today?
Support me: I'm a solo developer! Read more about the story
Become a 💎 Premium member ($30.00/year) and get exclusive features!
Too expensive?
Make a small donation instead. Buy me a coffee ($5) or help for the server cost ($10):
Donate with 😘 Paypal or  Become a Patron 😍 on Patreon.com