Anti-PC Writers Tricked Seven Academic Journals Into Accepting Hoax Papers on Dog Rape, Fat Phobia, and More

Surprise: If you work very, very hard at fooling people, you will often succeed.


Screenshot via Mike Nayna

A trio of writers who describe themselves as left-leaning but decry the academic influence of political correctness, identity politics, and what they call "grievance studies" conducted an experiment: Could they fool scholarly journals into publishing hoax papers masquerading as legitimate scholarship?

The answer, it turns out, was yes. Seven journals accepted the fake papers, which were written by James Lindsay, a mathematician; Helen Pluckrose, editor of Areo; and Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University.

Four of the papers have been published, according to The Wall Street Journal:

One of the trio's hoax papers, published in April by the journal Fat Studies, claims bodybuilding is "fat-exclusionary" and proposes "a new classification…termed fat bodybuilding, as a fat-inclusive politicized performance." Editor Esther Rothblum said the paper had gone through peer review, and the author signed a copyright form verifying authorship of the article. "This author put a lot of work into this topic," she said. "It is an interesting topic, looking at weight and bodybuilding. So I am surprised that, of all things, they'd write this as a hoax. As you can imagine, this is a very serious charge." She plans to remove the paper from the Fat Studies website.

A hoax paper for the Journal of Poetry Therapy describes monthly feminist spirituality meetings, complete with a "womb room," and discusses six poems, which Mr. Lindsay generated by algorithm and lightly edited. Founding editor Nicholas Mazza said the article went through blind peer review and revisions before its acceptance in July, but he regrets not doing more to verify the author's identity. He added that it took years to build credibility and get the Journal of Poetry Therapy listed in major scholarly databases. "You work so hard, and you get something like this," he said. Still, "I can see how editors like me and journals can be duped."

Affilia, a peer-reviewed journal of women and social work, formally accepted the trio's hoax paper, "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism." The second portion of the paper is a rewrite of a chapter from "Mein Kampf." Affilia's editors declined to comment.

In addition to the papers on fat studies, feminism spirituality, and neoliberal choice feminism, Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghossian also found a home for a fourth paper, "Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks."

This paper, which was published in Gender, Place and Culture, attracted my attention in June. While the title sounded absurd on its face, its author, the fictitious "Helen Wilson," purported to have compiled an impressive amount of data regarding her observations of canine sexual aggression at dog parks. Wilson claimed to be affiliated with the Portland Ungendering Research Initiative, which had a domain name but no operating website. As I wrote at the time, many of Wilson's conclusions were unwarranted, and the whole thing was written in incomprehensible social-justice gobbledygook, but the underlying data seemed to have some potential meaning, even if the author was applying it poorly:

Wilson spent 100 hours in three dog parks, where she made note of a whole bunch of times when one dog humped another. When the humping was male-on-male, owners intervened in the overwhelming number of cases. But when the humping was male-on-female, owners were far less likely to stop it. This, the study suggests, might say something about the owners' internalized homophobia and their willingness to overlook female victims of sexual assault.

At Areo, the authors claim that the dog park study's shortcomings should have been glaringly obvious because the statistics were "improbable," and advanced "highly dubious ethics including training men like dogs." The statistics may have been improbable enough that the journal should have asked for raw data, but it's not unthinkable that a very determined researcher obsessed with this topic could have done what Wilson claimed. As for the ethics involved, we-should-train-men-like-dogs is indeed a silly proposition, but researchers should feel comfortable exploring and testing crazy premises. Now who's being too P.C.?

My point is that I'm not sure this proves what Pluckrose, Boghossian, and Lindsay think it proves. They seem to believe they have shown that academic journals will accept complete garbage as long as it's intersectional progressive garbage. But at least in the case of the dog park study, this was well-disguised garbage.

This is not the first time Boghossian and Lindsay have declared victory after finding a home for shoddy scholarship. In 2017, they succeed in publishing a nonsense paper, "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct." But the chosen venue was essentially an academic vanity press that would only take their work if they paid a fee. Ultimately, this said more about the quality of pay-to-publish journals than it did about the gullibility of academic publishers.

The new scam is a lot more impressive: Seven hoax papers accepted for publication is a lot. This raises legitimate concerns about the academic publishing process, and much of the ridicule the "grievance studies" attract is deserved.

But it's also true more generally that if you work very, very hard at fooling people, you will often succeed—and not just in academia.

NEXT: Police Send Helicopter to Disperse Drunk College Students

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Surprise: If you work very, very hard at fooling people, you will often succeed”

    No one cares how you got your current job.

    1. I don’t think he had to fool anyone to get the job.

      Wanted: Millennial Progressive willing to gaslight libertarians into thinking leftists want to reduce the role of government

      1. The fact of the matter is they insidiously deceived people with their hoaxes, and since they clearly embarrassed their victims and damaged their reputations by doing so, they should be arrested, prosecuted, jailed, and permanently removed from the institutions where they are employed. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

        1. 1/5 too vague

        2. 3/5, precedent and tangetial applicability.

          1. “Tangetial,” really? All of these hoaxes are clearly designed to deceive, to embarrass, and, even worse, to provoke unwanted discussion of certain matters that everyone knows must never be openly addressed. Their authors should be arrested and jailed, regardless of any little legal technicalities.

        3. “if you work very, very hard at fooling people, you will often succeed?and not just in academia.”

          Calling Dr Ford!

        4. So, they misrepresented themselves as other people, who had established reputations? Here I thought all their names were fictitious.
          They kept going until someone caught on, and then cried “Come on, can’t you take a JOKE?” as they were being dragged away in chains for the above impersonation for fraud?. I thought they stopped before they were unmasked by others.

          Well, we each live in our own little worlds, but I’d rather not have someone emailing someone from a disposable address, claiming to be the “Real SRoach”, and talking them into things I’d never advocate or agree to.

          1. Certainly leading anti-Troll commentator Roach’s comment must be satirical–he speaks of “established reputations.” Ha-ha-ha! Is he referring to the self-made, undeserved “reputations” of distinguished charlatans who sexually harass their students at NYU and elsewhere? Of distinguished plagiarists who manage to squelch investigations into their misconduct and elude exposure for years? Never touch a reputation once it’s established! At any rate, one must appreciate Roach’s keen understanding of the subtleties involved in establishing the “line” between inappropriately deadpan, criminally sharp-edged academic parody, and “can you take a joke” forms of fraud.

            1. Ah. No. But nice try. Established, as in people knew what to expect from them. That their word had more weight than a random internet comment or the pleading of the person who is trying to get his paper, about some old pieces of parchment, a little more borrowed credibility.

              They didn’t borrow any credibility. They didn’t try to sell their paper on the reputations of others, unaffiliated with themselves. They created these nom-de-plumes that should have had no credibility, having no background to check, and no previous papers to compare, but because they were writing articles in that Very Special area, and essentially saying the Right Things, their papers got through.

              Perhaps you should re-write your paper to say negative things about the patriarchy in ancient Israel*, as revealed in ancient texts or whatnot, so you don’t have to pretend to be someone else to get your work published.

              Impersonation for fraud is not the same as “satire”, however much you want to lean on that crutch.

              *It’s been awhile since I read about your scam, and I really don’t care how many details I don’t recall exactly right.

      2. Now who is using buzzwords? lmfao. weak argument.

    2. You left off the best part of that quote “?and not just in academia.”

      Why is that even in this article? Who else was fooled (besides Soave)?

      Is Robby’s TDS so Stage IV powerful that this is some kind of dig at Trump? It has to refer to something else, is he talking about the Kavanaugh bullshit? What is he talking about, and why is it in here or in any way relevant?

  2. And Robby should know.

  3. Robby’s faith is being challenged and he can’t even right now

    1. To be sure.

  4. Surprise: If you work very, very hard at fooling people, you will often succeed.

    the point here is you don’t have to work that hard. This was done in the infamous Sokal Affair. It’s funny how a particular ideology is most susceptible to this.

    1. Be better to post-modernists

      1. Or not. They shouldn’t care either way.

        1. Listen to the old man in a leather jacket.

      2. Post-modernists are intellectual cowards.

        1. What do you mean? They’re pretty much undefeated against straw men.

        2. WHY is it that EVERY white population is forced to be multicultural/multiracial?
          This is not required of -ANY- non white people
          Anti whites call themselves “anti racists” but their actions target ONLY ONE race, the White race.
          It’s G e NO cide!

    2. It’s funny how a particular ideology is most susceptible to this.

      It’s almost like the peer review process of academic publication is a poor substitute for bona fide experimental reproduction. Like, rather than guaranteeing only high-quality breakthrough literature gets published, it practically guarantees that everyone involved in the peer review process is equally stupid.

      1. True. Except these are _________ Studies journals. And when you are in ___________ Studies, you are in a field that is only tangentially related to academia, let alone science.

        Reproducible results are a hallmark of the scientific method. It is really hard to pigeonhole Gender Studies into science, since it is largely a philosophical exercise. The farther afield you go, the less scientific judgements are going to be relevant.

        I used to work in molecular genetics and immunology. We published in places like Immunology, Blood, Science, Nature….. Getting published was really hard. You had to have work that was not only rigorous, but also interesting and relevant if you wanted to get into the most prestigious journals. Peer review was no joke… they poured over every bit of your work and would often demand more data or an additional (expensive) experiment before publishing.

        Having watched my peers in the social sciences get what basically amounted to term papers published in their top journals, I have no doubt that getting your paper published in some intersectional genderqueer studies journal would be relatively easy, even when compared to a psychology journal.

        1. Background in molecular biology/immunology here and what you say is dead on, reviewers can be bastards.

          As for the social sciences…just google “Sokal Hoax”, tells you everything you need to know.

        2. Does anyone recall this one from way back when?

          “In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science?among them existence itself?become problematized and relativized.” Alan Sokal, modern physicist, in recent demonstrative spoof writings published in an article entitled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, in “Social Text”, a “scholarly” journal dedicated to “deconstructing” modern science.

 in 1996

          All new is old again!!! AND vice versa!!!

          1. Does anyone recall this one from way back when?

            I certainly forgot it.

          2. Even better, it was submitted by a genuine physicist with impeccable lefty credentials. They must have thought “wow, we’ve got an actual hard-core physicist on our side, take that Gross and Levitt!”

            Would have paid damn good money to have been a fly on the wall when all was revealed.

            1. I have to wonder if part of the reason it works is that they wrap their philosophical discussions up in dense, made-up jargon. So if you jargon it up enough and use enough important sounding language, maybe they just think they aren’t understanding it because they aren’t smart enough. So, like the emperor with his new clothes, nobody wanted to admit that they had no clue what the author was talking about.

              Again, I will contrast with my experience in molecular biology. Papers would always (not sometimes, always) come back with revisions, edits and demands related to writing style. I have a particular tendency to write very long sentences, so that would get dinged every time. Believe it or not, jargon was actively discouraged. (this is true even in colloquial settings – like a journal club. I love to describe two proteins binding with language like “then the knob-thing gloms on to the socket-bit and it pulls the side thingie up and activates the enzymatic site”. My professors…. yeah, not so much. They’d always push me to use precise language.

              Contrast with SJW fields and the jargon is so dense you need a thesaurus on hand to read the thing. It is almost as bad as reading a mathematics paper….

              1. *** if you have never read a math paper, I highly recommend it. When looking up a reference in one of the top multidisciplinary journals you’ll often see something interesting from another field. So as a biologist I could read (and understand) a chemistry paper, or an ecology paper, or something from medicine, astronomy, physics….

                But math….. holy cow.

                The papers would read like this:

                (( super long equation that makes no sense to me))

                And so we can see that

                (( another super long equation that makes no sense to me))

                Therefore it is obvious that

                (( yet another super long equation that makes no sense to me))

                Usually you can read the abstract and the conclusion of a paper outside your area of expertisse and at least get something out of it. But a really dense math paper? Yeah… that might as well be gobbledygook. And yet I’ll bet that math journals are impervious to hoax papers.

          3. Also, at that point if they’d been genuine post modernists they’d have said, “that’s your version of reality and it’s no more privileged or hegemonic than our version of reality, end of story.

            But of course they didn’t…

          4. That was a classic.

          5. Dunno why he put so much work into that. He had them at “Transgressing Boundaries”. Pretty much safe to assume a lot of little stiffies/moisties right there at the title.

        3. I used to work in molecular genetics and immunology. We published in places like Immunology, Blood, Science, Nature….. Getting published was really hard. You had to have work that was not only rigorous, but also interesting and relevant if you wanted to get into the most prestigious journals. Peer review was no joke… they poured over every bit of your work and would often demand more data or an additional (expensive) experiment before publishing.

          Only Science and Nature, myself. I would add one caveat that spans the gap and that is networking and name recognition. I’ve done more exacting, precise, and reproducible work that didn’t get published and more… proof of concept work that did, and much more easily, and I’m dead certain that it had nothing to do with the science. At first, it’s cool discovering you have a sort of cheat code. Then, when you think about it, it’s really not cool.

          1. PNAS is who you know.

            1. Yeah but everybody knows that about PNAS.

          2. That bit about interesting and relevant was pretty much exactly what you talk about in your post. The biggest name journals love a “groundbreaking” paper. Or topical.

            When I was in grad school the crystallography folks were getting all of the love because of the cool 3D computer images of protein structures. They were getting covers all over the place.

            Meanwhile, some really important work on T cell signalling or cytokine upregulation would be relegated to tier 3 journals, despite the amount of work involved and the relevance to a wide field of study.

            Of course, nobody ever said life was fair. One of the ladies in grad school with me was working on cell surface motility. She developed a system of tagging surface proteins with Fluorescein and then photobleaching a spot on the cell surface with a laser. Then she would measure how rapidly the fluorescent proteins moved back into the spot. When I had been in school for about a year they threw a big party because she had met a big milestone. She had been working for 8 years on the project and had finally calibrated the machine and was ready to start doing experiments……

            Ouch. Eight, count-em, eight years. And she was just ready to start on her thesis work. I told them they should just give her the PhD on principle.

          3. re: “A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus”

            Yeah, but the system worked as intended there (note: the most conclusive ‘debunking’/counter-explanatory work done ALSO by a female scientist). She was not published because her findings matched some ideological checklist. Indeed, it was in the cause of useful speculation for someone specializing in exo-biology. It was neither fraud nor sloppiness, though one could argue peer-review might have found it to be premature.

            She should not have been shamed or criticized overly harshly, because her work, and this particular speculation, arguably advanced scientific knowledge and indeed, she is currently at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

            (full disclosure: I did not see the press conference or follow the debate at the online FAQ. She MAY have been up there in a low-cut mini-skirt going “And THIS is what we think the arsenic-based aliens would look like!!”. In which case…well, bad.)

        4. The hell of it is that the social sciences, genderqueer studies, intersectional studies, etc. have the most influence in academia, rather than hard sciences that demand some kind of proof rather than something that sounds “revolutionary”. Genderqueer studies will have more influence over physics than physics will have over genderqueer studies.

          1. have the most influence in academia


            1. Have you ever heard of a mathematician shutting down the publication of a genderqueer study? Inconceivable! Yet the reverse has been true!!!

              Today, in the USA, anyone studying “politically incorrect” subjects cannot get their papers published! Even if they are factual and dispassionate (not obviously political, or at least not obviously of the WRONG politics). See for example,…..ft#comment , AKA “A Mathematician Says Activists Made His Paper Disappear Because Its Findings Offended Them” “At behest of a feminist professor, an academic journal’s board reportedly threatened to ‘harass the journal until it died.'” Politics trumps science, and violators are still figuratively sent to the gulag in the USA, as well.

              1. That’s not even politics. That’s mob rule.

                1. Sort of the same way that no data is ever published that shows no harmful effects of tobacco use/secondhand smoke exposure? If the risk ratio isn’t high enough, you’d better have a damn good bias explanation up your sleeve about WHY your study doesn’t link tobacco and XYZ disease.

                  Believe it or not, there’s a name for what you folks are saying: Publication Bias. If it doesn’t go along with common thought, it doesn’t get published. If it aligns with general consensus, likelihood of publication goes way up.

              2. SQRLSY One — Some of it’s actually pretty confusing, though honestly I object to gender studies being considered a science at all, no less a social science.

                But it’s also something which I know a bit about: Some of the genetic basis is most likely the simple fact that several of the key genes for the brain are on the X chromosome–and by having two copies of the X chromosome means you’re more likely get a copy of the normal version of the gene and less likely to get dramatic results from getting a mutation. Yes, that means you’re going to get less benefit from the awesome mutations floating around (unless you manage to snag two copies of it), but it looks like you’d be more likely to get the sucky ones anyway so…

                Honestly I find the objection itself more misogynistic, since it basically assumes little girls will somehow interpret ‘I am more likely to be normal’ as ‘I am stupid.’ No. It’d mostly just back up the thing the more observant girls will have noticed: There’s a lot more stupid boys than stupid girls… (There’s a word for doing things like insisting to somebody that something real that they’ve noticed doesn’t exist.)

                1. Thanks! Makes sense to me…

                  “Cognitive dissonance” between what we see, and what we are brain-washed to believe, yes indeed!

                2. An Non — there’s no scientific evidence to support your theory. It’s a neat theory though and worth exploring.

            2. I think he’s trying to make the point that social science faculty are going to have more power and influence on campus than people from the hard sciences.

              From the outside it certainly seems true – definitely if you are not in a major research setting.

              But I have to wonder about the bigger research universities. When I was in grad school the medical research department brought in over $100 million in research grants (this is 30 years ago). That’s a lot of scratch. It had to make a difference in how much power you wield.

              It didn’t seem that way though. Maybe part of it is the hard science research folks are working their butts off trying to get the next 3 grants and keeping a staff of post docs and grad students busy. Maybe they don’t have the time for campus politics like someone who writes literature reviews a couple of times per year.

              1. Yeah, I’d like some more information about what is meant by “power and influence”, because I generally find that the opposite is true. Headlines? Maybe that’s a different story…

                1. I think the problem is that the study of humans, society, culture, etc tend to have more direct influence over… Humans, society, and culture!

                  Everybody appreciates that the microwave oven was invented. It changed the world a lot! But all these fuzzy wuzzy BS “sciences” have had more effect on how things work than scientific advances have in a lot of ways. Those fucks have made socialism cool. They’ve destroyed the family, and male/female relationships. So on.

                  Science just kind of plugs away doing its thing, but those “other people” are the ones that kind of steer the entire ship via their political and cultural influence… And in the late 19th and 20th centuries, and into the 21st thus far, it has been a VERY BAD direction they have been steering us.

                  1. I disagree with most of that. I think the biggest societal changes over the centuries have been the direct result of technological innovation — whether the changes brought about by the industrial revolution, modes of travel, improvements in health and living, or (as we’ve seen recently) computing and information. I don’t get the sense that people in the “humanities” are influencing much of anything of that level of importance, aside from the political debate which is always a slave to technology.

                    1. Ah, but how do people SEE society being influenced? The changes you cite, from real science, are themselves very significant and very real, but can you get Twitter ‘likes’ from them?

                      Keep an eye on what’s important to people, man.

                    2. Can you like something on Twitter without first inventing Twitter? Or the internet? Or the computer? Or harnessing electricity?

                    3. So here’s the thing: Politics can largely override that.

                      Look at China. Their politics kept them in the dark ages. Japan’s politics in the 1800s made them the first non European country to industrialize, and they built an empire out of it.

                      All the microwave ovens in the world wouldn’t have stopped Mussolini from coming to power either.

                      Technology creates massive changes, but politics can ultimately trump them all. And politics is driven by culture, societal norms, etc.

                      If the March Through The Institutions hadn’t happened in the USA, we would probably be in a Golden Age in the USA that made the 1950s look like the piece of shit it SHOULD BE considered… Instead we have a society that is literally collapsing in on itself because of the destructive social structure that was put into place by economic and cultural Marxists.

                      By all rights we should be doing soooooo much better than back then, and in some ways we are, because of technology… But the cultural influences have screwed our society up, dumbed people down to where we allow our government to run more than 20 trillion in debt, etc. We’re less stable as a country now than we were in 1955 or 1965. Trinkets don’t make up for a society being on the brink of collapse IMO.

    3. I don’t think they had to work very, very hard. What’s very, very hard is to differentiate between fake gibberish and the real gibberish those journals regularly publish.

    4. All ideologies are susceptible to this. Even libertarianism. People rarely scrutinize narratives which match their worldview.

      1. They are, but there’s a particular area in the Universities that seem particularly susceptible to it.

        1. ” there’s a particular area in the Universities that seem particularly susceptible to it.”

          Leave the athletics department out of it.

      2. You can’t fake being a mathematician or a particle physicist, as for some areas of the social sciences where it’s particulary fetid it seems to attract the charlatans.

        1. You can.

          1. Did you know that Schon (the scumbag faker here)… That “Schon” in German means “beautiful”?

            Faking research results does NOT sound very beautiful to me!!!

            (I never fake anything except for my orgasms, from time to time, and those are “little white lies”…)

            1. “..little WHITE lies…” Gross.

          2. Oh, he wasn’t caught?

            Reproducibility is a thing. And it’s important. And it catches people who do bad things.

          3. Yeah, but it was “the biggest fraud in physics in 50 years” and

            “The scandal provoked discussion in the scientific community about the degree of responsibility of coauthors and reviewers of scientific articles. The debate centered on whether peer review, traditionally designed to find errors and determine relevance and originality of articles, should also be required to detect deliberate fraud.”

            You’re not seriously comparing this to the near-effortless ease of getting gobbledygook published in “The Quarterly Journal of Transgressive Gobbledygook Studies” are you?

      3. How do you fake being a Libertarian?

        If you want zero government, you’re an anarchist not a Libertarian.

        If you want Socialism, you’re a Socialist or Communist not a Libertarian.

        1. Well now, that should clear about 70% of the posters and about 90% of the staff here out!

    5. It’s easy to loan credibility to someone who is telling you things you want to believe.
      And, no, it’s not just the Liberals who do this.
      Three words.
      Young Earth Theory.

  5. It blows my mind that anyone takes these journals seriously to begin with. While a Journal of Poetry Therapy could conceivably be scientific even though it almost certainly is not, it just boggles the mind how anyone can think that a paper titled, “Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism,” could be remotely scientific.

    1. No kidding. There are not even remotely scientific papers. Are they even testing a hypothesis?

      1. There’s “science” and then there’s “science-y”. These journals fall into the latter category. They use to be called pseudosciences

        1. Even the Dog Park one is probably not that bad, if what the Editor said is true. They commented on the conclusions being unfounded, but the data might be interesting.

          There are other problems here even then, but that’s less gobbledigook and more just issues with faking data, and probably lax standards for the overall paper.

          1. “Heteronormativity in Dogs As Trained Behavior: Towards an Interrogation of Gay Dog Shaming in Pet Owners”

            I WILL need some grant money to follow up on this.

    2. No genuine scholar ever took them seriously. Real scholars worked on advancing human knowledge, while the SJWs concentrated on academic politics and took over the universities like a cancer.


  6. But these are “academic” -journals. When gibberish makes the cut, it belies the usefulness of ANYTHING in it.

    1. You mean like global warming???

      1. Global warming is scientifically settled. What is in dispute is how much the climate will warm in the future and whether the results will be catastrophic. They probably will not be, lakes in Siberia roiling with bubbling methane notwithstanding.

        1. What is in dispute is how much, if any, effect human activity has on a process that any fool with two brain cells can recognize is a cyclical temperature change that’s been happening since literally forever.

        2. Global warming until there is global cooling.

          Its not settled.

          There is zero proof that humans are the only factor in driving runaway climate change. In less than 1 billion years, the Sun will be the major factor in driving runaway global warming.

          1. There is zero proof that humans are the only factor in driving runaway climate change.

            That’s good, because he didn’t say there was.

            1. No, yoi claimed it was “settled” when the ECS range remains as vaguely defined as it was 30 years ago. If you want to say the radiative properties of gases are settled, fine, but your other claim is bunk.

              1. First of all, you’re getting your authors confused. I didn’t make claims. Second, what he said was settled is the notion that the earth is warming, and then he went on to explain that one of the key remaining questions is whether the warming will impact anything significant (i.e. whether it adheres to conventional ECS range ideas). It doesn’t sound like you two disagree. It sounds like you’re just ultra-reactionary to the word “settled”.

                1. They probably will not be, lakes in Siberia roiling with bubbling methane notwithstanding.

                  Yeah, right.

                  Sounds like you’re just ultra-accommodating to the word “settled.”

                  1. I’m curious if you know what “notwithstanding” means.

                    1. The earth has been measured to be warming. Sure, okay.
                      Human action may be contributing to warming. Fine.

                      139 of 141 climate change predictive models have OVERESTIMATED the amount of warming actually measured. THAT cannot be random chance, or the result of an honest best effort to accurately predict the degree of warming.

                      THAT’S what makes me skeptical of global warming alarmists. That and the absence of consideration for the cost and practicality of ameliorative efforts vs. “reversal of warming” efforts.

        3. HA!

    2. Supposedly, these were all peer-reviewed too, so it can be called SCIENCE

      1. Fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong!

        1. Actually, yes, they can.

        2. I think the Germans might have something to say about that…

  7. “What is real? How do you define ‘real’? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.”


    1. Consciousness is real. That’s the only thing we know for sure. Or rather, it’s the only thing I know for sure. The rest of you might not exist.

      1. Consciousness is intermittent. Of course, we can’t tell, because you can’t see yourself in the mirror when the lights are off.

      2. Uh oh, someone didn’t read David Hume’s bundle theory

        Spoiler: you can’t prove you exist and neither can I or something

        1. I can’t prove to anyone else that I exist, but I know for certain that I exist. Or, more precisely, I know my consciousness exists. My body might not.

          1. So Helen Keller had no consciousness?

            1. I have no way of knowing. Helen Keller, if she existed, knew for certain if she was conscious.

            2. Look up ‘brain in a jar.’

  8. Their names have been published-these scholars should expect a visit from Antifa any minute now

  9. But it’s also true more generally that if you work very, very hard at fooling people, you will often succeed?and not just in academia.

    Well, sure, but isn’t that the point? These are institutions that pride themselves on being rigorous enough to detect Sokal-type hoaxes and are discriminatory in what they choose to publish. Sure, a lazy paper isn’t going to pass that initial review, but anyone willing to put forth at least a modicum of effort to parrot left-wing shibboleths about cultural Marxism by exploiting the current obsession in academia, particularly in the social sciences and humanities, with finding increasingly esoteric progressive stack victims, is clearly going to get a sympathetic hearing.

    1. Robby’s faith is being challenged. Of course he’s going to devise a moronic excuse for why he worships gibberish.

      1. Seriously. He’s basically trying to cover for these obviously retarded leftists, because the idea that leftists will publish any drivel that supports their bullshit narrative is offensive to him… Because he buys into 3/4 of their bullshit.

    2. These are institutions that pride themselves on being rigorous enough to detect Sokal-type hoaxes and are discriminatory in what they choose to publish

      No they’re not. Literally every day I get spam from an upstart journal guaranteeing acceptance if I send them an article and a check. Some journals are less blatant but essentially offer the same thing. The idea that all journals are created equal is the problem with this article. If you dredge the bottom of the journal barrel, you’re going to find a lot of bullshit papers — whether intentionally “fake” or not.

      1. JunkScienceIsJunk — Check the list of journals. These are NOT the ‘bottom of the journal barrel.’ Well, not unless you consider the fields they’re within to be automatically at the bottom of the journal barrel…

        Part of the point of the whole project was to check and demonstrate that the journals in these fields aren’t rigorous in the way an academic journal ought to be–as long as you say the appropriate things, demonstrate the correct dogma, and forward the cause, you will advance. This is more dogmatic rigor than academic rigor–and was something the sciences worked to get rid of precisely because it results in junk.

        1. Hi An Non. I’ve checked these journals. They’re horrible. They have inadequate peer review (duh…), aren’t indexed, come from notoriously poor publishing groups, and mostly don’t provide any readership numbers which is super sketchy. On what basis do you claim that these are reputable journals?

          I understand the point of the exercise. I’d just like to see them do it in real journals, that’s all.

          The other factor not mentioned in this article is the fact that self-preservation plays such a VITAL role in ensuring quality. These fake-authors do not face any repercussion for essentially falsifying data because they’re playing a game. Considering that the most common punishment for falsifying data is that you are fired from your job and basically blacklisted from the field, real people are less inclined to take these sorts of risks. Which renders this group’s experiment a little artificial…

  10. >>>but the underlying data seemed to have some potential meaning

    “Facts, schmacts. Anyone can prove anything w/facts.” – Homer Simpson


    The Journal of Poetry Therapy (JPT) , sponsored by the National Association for Poetry Therapy, is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal committed to the publication of original articles concerned with the use of the literary arts in therapeutic, educational, and community-building capacities. The purview of the JPT includes the use of bibliotherapy, journal therapy, creative writing, narrative, lyrics, storytelling, and metaphor in human service settings. Research (qualitative and quantitative) , practice (clinical and education), theoretical, and literary studies are emphasized. The intended audience of JPT includes those in the allied helping professions and education, as well as those in literary/artistic fields with a concern toward promoting growth and healing through language, symbol, and story.

  12. Soave unsurprisingly misses the point. It is not that these publications were fooled or that the people worked hard to do so. The point is how they were fooled. These publications were willing to publish things that are facially absurd to any reasonable person. If the articles in question had been plausible but just made up, then this episode would reflect only on the dishonesty of the authors. The articles, however, were not plausible. There were are comically absurd. The fact that these publications accepted them shows they will accept anything so long as it contains the proper buzzwords.

    This isn’t hard to understand. Why it is so hard for Robby is something he should probably consider and maybe work on a bit.

    1. The articles might not have been plausible, but they were credible. And well sourced.

      1. They got the narrative right.

      2. You know who else was credible?

        1. Mr. Rogers?

        2. Mr. Incredible?

        3. Doc Bruce Banner?

          1. Every sexual assault survivor ever?

        4. Adolph Hitler*?

          *Before the invasion of the USSR.

    2. Maybe they should start using lie detector tests!

    3. But remember: Robby was fooled by the dog one. Of course he’s not going to get the joke

    4. ^ This. It’s a perfectly valid criticism of each of the journals that supposedly peer reviewed these things. In fact, it’s a valid criticism of the underlying fields they represent in that their subjects can’t be scientifically peer reviewed at all.

    5. Soave also seems to miss the point that this fooled the peer reviewers who are supposedly experts in these fields.

      It would be one thing if there was a journal where editors just read it and published. But the leaders in these fields couldn’t distinguish their own “science” from titles that were so outlandish they made me laugh out loud.

      So its actually a deeper critique of these entire fields.

      Robby doesn’t have time to understand that because he’s probably got to write another three Kavanaugh’s “victims” are credible stories before turning his cutting insight to the NYT tax story which revealed the ASTOUNDING truism that a wealthy parent will do everything he can to help his son and shield his money from confiscation.

      1. I eagerly await Reason lecturing its readers on the evils of even legal tax avoidance. You know it is coming. You know they are going to do it. It is just a question of when and which one of the staff is brain dead enough to write it.

        1. I posted the link to the Trump lawyer who responded to the NYT article.

          His main point was that tax lawyers and tax professional completed Trump’s taxes and the IRS and NY State accepted the filings over a decade ago.

      2. Soave also seems to miss the point that this fooled the peer reviewers who are supposedly experts in these fields.

        This isn’t true. Lots of journals (shitty ones) will ask practically anyone in the field to review a paper. Many journals will ASK THE SUBMITTING AUTHOR who they would like to peer review the paper, and will often take their recommendation. There is absolutely no reason to believe that these bottom-of-the-barrel journals asked “experts in the field” to peer review these submissions.

        1. And the proof that these are “bottom of the barrel” is, aside from the fielf of “study” itself?

          1. Well, there are a few reasons to believe that they’re bottom of the barrel. 1) they’re not owned or affiliated with reputable publishing companies; 2) the health-related ones are not indexed by PubMed; 3) the impact factor of these journals is either low or not compiled at all; 4) oh yeah, they published bogus papers.

            Let me know when they get this trick to work with Nature.

            1. 4) oh yeah, they published bogus papers.

              That’s funny:

              On October 31, 2002, Science withdrew eight articles written by Sch?n:[17]

              J. H. Sch?n; S. Berg; Ch. Kloc; B. Batlogg (2000). “Ambipolar Pentacene Field-Effect Transistors and Inverters”. Science. 287 (5455): 1022?3. Bibcode:2000Sci…287.1022S. doi:10.1126/science.287.5455.1022. PMID 10669410. (Retracted)
              J. H. Sch?n; Ch. Kloc; R. C. Haddon; B. Batlogg (2000). “A Superconducting Field-Effect Switch”. Science. 288 (5466): 656?8. doi:10.1126/science.288.5466.656. PMID 10784445. (Retracted)
              J. H. Sch?n; Ch. Kloc; B. Batlogg (2000). “Fractional Quantum Hall Effect in Organic Molecular Semiconductors”. Science. 288 (5475): 2338?40. doi:10.1126/science.288.5475.2338. PMID 17769842. (Retracted)
              J. H. Sch?n; Ch. Kloc; A. Dodabalapur; B. Batlogg (2000). “An Organic Solid State Injection Laser”. Science. 289 (5479): 599?601. Bibcode:2000Sci…289..599S. doi:10.1126/science.289.5479.599. PMID 10915617. (Retracted)
              J. H. Sch?n; Ch. Kloc; B. Batlogg (2000). “A Light-Emitting Field-Effect Transistor”. Science. 290 (5493): 963?6. Bibcode:2000Sci…290..963S. doi:10.1126/science.290.5493.963. PMID 11062124. (Retracted)
              J. H. Sch?n; Ch. Kloc; H. Y. Hwang; B. Batlogg (2001). “Josephson Junctions with Tunable Weak Links”. Science. 292 (5515): 252?4. doi:10.1126/science.1058812. PMID 11303093. (Retracted)

              1. (cont.)

                J. H. Sch?n; A. Dodabalapur; Ch. Kloc; B. Batlogg (2001). “High-Temperature Superconductivity in Lattice-Expanded C60”. Science. 293 (5539): 2432?4. Bibcode:2001Sci…293.2432S. doi:10.1126/science.1064773. PMID 11533443. (Retracted)
                J. H. Sch?n; Ch. Kloc; A. Dodabalapur; B. Batlogg (2001). “Field-Effect Modulation of the Conductance of Single Molecules”. Science. 294 (5549): 2138?40. doi:10.1126/science.1066171. PMID 11701891. (Retracted)

                1. Really funny:

                  On March 5, 2003, Nature withdrew seven articles written by Sch?n:[26]

                  J. H. Sch?n; M. Dorget; F. C. Beuran; X. Z. Zu; E. Arushanov; C. Deville Cavellin; M. Lagu?s (2001). “Superconductivity in CaCuO2 as a result of field-effect doping”. Nature. 414 (6862): 434?6. Bibcode:2001Natur.414..434S. doi:10.1038/35106539. PMID 11719801. (Retracted)
                  J. H. Sch?n; Ch. Kloc; T. Siegrist; M. Steigerwald; C. Svensson; B. Batlogg (2001). “Superconductivity in single crystals of the fullerene C70”. Nature. 413 (6858): 831?3. Bibcode:2001Natur.413..831S. doi:10.1038/35101577. PMID 11677603. (Retracted)
                  J. H. Sch?n; H. Meng; Z. Bao (2001). “Self-assembled monolayer organic field-effect transistors”. Nature. 413 (6857): 713?6. Bibcode:2001Natur.413..713S. doi:10.1038/35099520. PMID 11607026. (Retracted)
                  J. H. Sch?n; A. Dodabalapur; Z. Bao; Ch. Kloc; O. Schenker; B. Batlogg (2001). “Gate-induced superconductivity in a solution-processed organic polymer film”. Nature. 410 (6825): 189?92. Bibcode:2001Natur.410..189S. doi:10.1038/35065565. PMID 11242074. (Retracted)

                  1. (cont.)

                    J. H. Sch?n; Ch. Kloc; B. Batlogg (2000). “Superconductivity at 52 K in hole-doped C60”. Nature. 408 (6812): 549?52. Bibcode:2000Natur.408..549S. doi:10.1038/35046008. PMID 11117735. (Retracted)
                    J. H. Sch?n; Ch. Kloc; B. Batlogg (2000). “Superconductivity in molecular crystals induced by charge injection”. Nature. 406 (6797): 702?4. Bibcode:2000Natur.406..702S. doi:10.1038/35021011. PMID 10963589. (Retracted)
                    J. H. Sch?n; Ch. Kloc; E. Bucher; B. Batlogg (2000). “Efficient organic photovoltaic diodes based on doped pentacene”. Nature. 403 (6768): 408?10. Bibcode:2000Natur.403..408S. doi:10.1038/35000172. PMID 10667788. (Retracted)

                    1. NAS, I’m well aware. Schon wasn’t playing a game. He was falsifying. He wasn’t using left-wing buzzwords, plagiarized works, and nonsensical narratives. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

            2. JunkScienceIsJunk – #2 is true pretty much because PubMed is highly unlikely to index ANY journals in those particular fields.

              Because junk ‘science’ is junk, and we don’t want to be associated with the reek of academic fecal matter.

              1. If you read what I wrote, you’ll see that I said “health-related ones”. Please review.

    6. And just think, if they were on the tenure track they could use this publications to convince a committee to grant them tenure. Yikes.

      1. Yeah, and if the committee was filled with idiots, they’d actually accept publications listend in shitty journals as support for tenure. More likely, the committee realizes that the papers submitted are bullshit papers that have been published in bullshit journals and have not subsequently led to any scholarly activities.

        1. Not if you’re seeking tenure in the gender studies department. There, bullshit journals are the only ones that count.

          1. And then more grad students, and more “research”, and asinine pubs, and on and on and on…

  13. Forget it, Robby, it’s Portland.

  14. Do any of you deny how traumatic it is to watch dogs humping each other


    1. Homosexual [dominance] humping, or reproductive [the bitch is in heat] humping?

      1. That is LBGTQ dominance, shitlord.

        Have a nice day. 🙂

        1. My dog identifies as a T-rex.

          1. My dog is an expert at pee-review.

  15. Part of the reason that academics in Bitterness Studies can be so easily fooled is that it is forbidden among them to question the sincerity of Marginalized Persons. Anything they say must be taken seriously at least and preferably believed without question. Scholarly criticism is only for white males.

    1. That was actually one of the papers

    2. “”academics in Bitterness Studies “‘

      That’s funny.

    3. “… it is forbidden among them to question the sincerity of Marginalized Persons.”

      It is. after all, their supposed raison d’etre; though in reality academic slackers have simply found themselves a cause from which to profit.

    4. I don’t question the sincerity of Marginalized Persons… I just question their intelligence. 🙂

  16. No, Robby, the fact that the dog one fooled you means that you bought into the bullshit and became comically gullible. Not that it seemed like real research

    1. Next time Robby sees you he’s going to slap you like a real man

      1. Robby’s magnificent hair alone is a weapon of mass destruction.

    2. It will happen again.

      Lefties dont like actual science because it requires that anyone can take your claim and reproduce the results.

      1. No, progs don’t like science because the core process supports challenging someone and trying to prove them wrong. That could hurt some feelings.

  17. “Wilson spent 100 hours in three dog parks, where she made note of a whole bunch of times when one dog humped another.”

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    The interesting question is how much shit like this gets printed somewhere like the New York Times.

    Anybody else remember “Monkey Fishing” and Jayson Blair?

    There is no good substitute for critical thinking.

  18. My point is that I’m not sure this proves what Pluckrose, Boghossian, and Lindsay think it proves.

    Soave is so butt hurt he can’t accept the obvious. That the “intersectional progressive garbage” is indeed garbage.

    1. That these fields of study are so soft they are practically a vapor?

  19. Academic studies tell us that all academic studies are 150% accurate you dumb racist redneck trailor park dwelling, Jebus loving rube inbred toothless pennsyltucky science denying bigots!

    1. Everything I needed to know about average Americans, I learned by watching dogs hump for 100 hours.

    2. The opposite in fact. This repeatability stuff is a big topic now.

      And then the rest is humanities, which is just people giving opinions basically. Both the lowest of the fields, and arguably the most influential due to the low barrier of understanding for most work in it.

      1. I don’t know but it sure sounds like him.

        1. Nah, he didn’t say “clingers”.

    3. The Cliff Notes for every Rev argument ever.

    4. -1, Rev. Kirkland imitation, needs more connective (non-buzz-word) tissue.

  20. …the whole thing was written in incomprehensible social-justice gobbledygook…

    Incomprehensible to a Neanderthal like you, maybe.

  21. One of the academic submissions was a poem titled Moon Meetings and the Meaning of Sisterhood: A Poetic Portrayal of Lived Feminist Spirituality

    It was generated by a bot at this web site:

    Try it yourself ! Hard work, indeed.

  22. “But it’s also true more generally that if you work very, very hard at fooling people, you will often succeed?and not just in academia.”

    Did you consider the possibility that you will often succeed when telling people what they’re inclined to believe, and you don’t have to work nearly so hard at it? You should.

  23. If “Fat Studies,” “Journal of Poetry Therapy,” and “Gender, Place and Culture” are really widely recognized in academia as academic journals, then they hoax papers _are_ legitimate scholarship by that standard. I’m actually kind of curious if real academic journals even exist any more.

    1. Judging by how few papers seem to be reproducible even in so-called ‘legitimate’ journals, I think you might be on to something.

      1. It’s a serious issue. A lot of it, I think, has to do with the academic structure we’ve built up. Funding tends to go to those who publish, and so #of publications becomes the metric optimized for by Academics.

        Turns out, shitting out as many papers as you can does not guarantee good work, and the necessity of it leads to a system that aids this type of behavior.

        1. Turns out, shitting out as many papers as you can does not guarantee good work, and the necessity of it leads to a system that aids this type of behavior.

          ^ This.

        2. #of publications becomes the metric optimized for by Academics.

          Study sections aren’t so dumb to just count up papers. Quality of the papers matter more than quantity. Turns out, there’s often a correlation between the two, because the people who tend to write high quality papers are also the types of people who tend to publish frequently.

          1. Turns out the types of people who tend to publish frequently are the types of people who tend to bring in grants with their 120% overhead for “support and services.” And that is what matters in the end.

            1. What are you talking about? Most grants have closer to 50% overhead (and it’s usually limited by the funding organization). What “overhead” means is that an entity is providing you space and infrastructure (you know, electricity, water, etc.) that must be paid for. In fact, most analyses have shown that indirect costs are probably lower than they should be.

        3. As in most every field, proofs aren’t as sexy as wild theories.

  24. The most funny and amazing thing about this is that there is a journal actually called “Fat Studies”.

    How is that not a demeaning title? I’m sure it makes fat people feel unsafe.

  25. But, but….this was settled science!!1!

    1. Dog humping? Sure as hell is.

  26. An amusing NON-hoax: there is an NMR technique called “PENIS”. No fooling, there really is. It’s “proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy”. Look it up.

    1. This is the type of Toxic Masculinity that keeps all peoples from succeeding in the hard sciences.

      1. Tearful apologies inbound in 3…2…

      2. Actually it’s mostly just the fact that IQ distributions vary…

        But Toxic Masculinity is pretty fucking awesome too, so if we can keep that around to reduce the 5% of competent women at the top of hard science fields down to 2% or whatever that’s totes cool too!

    2. High level physicists are almost as good at coming up with on point acronyms as congressional staffers.

  27. “This author put a lot of work into this topic,” she said. “It is an interesting topic, looking at weight and bodybuilding. So I am surprised that, of all things, they’d write this as a hoax. As you can imagine, this is a very serious charge.” She plans to remove the paper from the Fat Studies website.

    She isn’t even hiding the fact that she really wants to keep the article anyway…it would be funny if people like that didn’t have so much influence

    1. That influence is one of the best arguments for small government. People like that have influence only because they are the ones who train and inform the bureaucrats. Without big government, they would just be harmless kooks.

  28. But maybe you do not have to work very hard to fool these types of academic journals as perhaps they are where academic rigor goes to die.

    1. More like the rotting, fleshless corpse of academic rigor ambles down the hallways calling out… “Brains!… Brains!”

  29. I find many leftists insufferable. But I’d buy all of these leftists a beer, or ten.

    1. I would give them jobs if they kept doing it.

      Exposing Lefty publications for the frauds that they are can only be good for the USA.

  30. Mmm, that’s good trolling!

  31. “My point is that I’m not sure this proves what Pluckrose, Boghossian, and Lindsay think it proves. They seem to believe they have shown that academic journals will accept complete garbage as long as it’s intersectional progressive garbage. But at least in the case of the dog park study, this was well-disguised garbage.”

    Ahh yes. The extremely persuasive distinction between degrees of garbage. Glad we have Soave on this one. This is the kind of nuanced thought leadership we need!

    1. And that comment about garbage seems to imply that there is “intersectional progressive research” that is not garbage.

      1. LOL

        Good Point!

  32. Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” –George Orwell

  33. Leave it to Robby to defend a fake dog rape study as valuable.

    1. #Ibelievethebitches

  34. Here’s a quick question. Did they get published in actual academic journals, or in the sort of pretend journal that caters to “publish or perish” academics who so desperately need to publish that they will pay to do so?

    1. Quick answer: Suggest you read the article.

      1. Got about halfway through, and the answer hadn’t yet been addressed.

        My own experience with academic journals is two-fold… When I was an educator, it was in a vocational field, so I collected certifications instead of publications. My last time around as a student, I was an article editor on a law review, which operate differently from academic journals in other academic fields.

        1. No, they did not submit these for journals that require payment to publish.

          From their article on Aero Magazine

          We set out with three basic rules: (1) we’ll focus almost exclusively upon ranked peer-reviewed journals in the field, the higher the better and at the top of their subdisciplines whenever possible; (2) we will not pay to publish any paper; and (3) if we are asked at any point by a journal editor or reviewer (but not a journalist!) if any paper we wrote is an attempted hoax, we will admit it. These rules were meant to ensure that any conclusions we derived from the field came from the field itself, not the unrelated but significant problem that also corrupts academic pursuits: the proliferation of predatory and quasi-predatory journals with extremely low standards. With these rules guiding us, we committed to transparently reporting the results, whether we succeeded or failed.

          1. (1) we’ll focus almost exclusively upon ranked peer-reviewed journals in the field, the higher the better and at the top of their subdisciplines whenever possible; (2) we will not pay to publish any paper;

            Yeah, a “ranked” health journal not indexed by PubMed and not reporting an impact factor. Who ranked them? Consumer Reports?

            1. You seem awfully defensive of the publication guild.

              1. So you were familiar with all these journals before this article appeared?

                1. I don’t get the feeling JunkScienceIsJunk is familiar with PubMed and the biomedical field. Hi, my degrees are all in that field. I’d be outright amazed if there’s any journals from these fields indexed at PubMed.

                  Not only that, but about the only reason I can think of for anybody there to cite a paper in those fields’ journals is in a paper such as The Effectiveness of Poetry Therapy where one of the things the paper would have to do is outline what poetry therapy is & how it believes it gets results (as well as what those results are supposed to be) before we get to the research we did to see if it does (or doesn’t) work. And there might be some citations to their journals in the discussion section, too, depending on what the numbers say.

                  1. Really? So you can’t find any “fat” studies in PubMed? It doesn’t return any gender studies papers either? This is a really odd criticism of my assertion that the quality of journal is VERY MUCH dependent on where it’s indexed. And, since you have a degree in the health sciences, I’m sure you recall from your interactions with academic researchers that they place virtually no weight on journals not indexed by PubMed. We just don’t waste our time publishing there.

                    Yes, some of the papers in this article were not health-related. But, as I’ve pointed out, there are other criteria to review to get a sense of the reputation of the journal. Nevertheless, you’ll notice that many of the comments here consist of people extrapolating the poetry paper experiment to health science fields. So let’s not pretend it’s irrelevant… The point is that we, in the health science fields, have a pretty good concept of what a good journal is and what a shitty one is.

                    1. The main point the hoax articles succeeded in making may very well have more to do with academic publishing than anything else.

                      HOWEVER. It’s also tangentially demonstrated that a broom that swept away the most questionable, worthless and pay-to-publish journals would sweep away a very large number of Grievance Studies, Gender Studies, and “Deconstructing *(everyfuckingthingeverproduced)* Studies” journals.

                    2. I agree. The question now is what do we do with this information? If we’re concluding that these shitty journals have loads of questionable material in them, do we enact a law to make them illegal? Do we dismiss every paper that’s ever been published in them? Do we extrapolate these findings to The New England Journal of Medicine? As absurd as those conclusions sound, some people are actually doing that. And that’s the problem with drawing too many inferences from these types of games.

                      I’ve long argued that scientists, poets, and everyone in between need MORE avenues to disseminate their work, not fewer. The scientific community, by and large, has agreed with this. Now alternatives like preprints have become a thing (non-peer reviewed access). People are using the web more efficiently to discuss and present ideas (ResearchGate is a nice vehicle for this for researchers). But articles like this one appear to be attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  35. Apparently one of these articles was nothing more than a slightly reworked chapter of Mein Kampf.

    Because nothing says scholarly tone quite like literal Hitler.

    1. I’m pretty sure that if you replace “Jews” with “white heterosexual cis-gender males” it would basically just be the talking points of the Democratic party in 2018…

      1. God, that’s actually a great idea…

        Just take Mein Kampf, do a find and replace for Jews = old white men, and maybe a couple other common terms (replace communism with fascism, leave capitalism as such because Hitler railed on that already, etc), then re-release it on Amazon Kindle as “A Democratic Socialists Manifesto” or something. It could be big!

        1. You’d also have to revise all the references to volk und rasseinto multi-culti identity groups.

          At which point your hoax would largely indistinguishable from a modern academic work,

          1. Yup! That would actually be a pretty clever idea… You might be able to make a few bucks just as a silly internet outrage mob type deal.

    2. You know who else was “literal Hitler”?

      Never mind, it was Hitler.

  36. “If you work very, very hard at fooling people, you will often succeed.”

    Since the second half of one of the papers was a chapter from Mein Kampf translated into English. Apparently, you don’t have to work “very, very, hard”.

    And that might have been their point.

    1. Hey, arbeit macht frei

      1. arbeit macht tenured

  37. There are a million journals out there. You can start your own if you want. There are no restrictions for doing so. But that doesn’t mean that people read (or believe or cite) what’s in all of them. For the most part, only the most reputable journals are paid attention to, because those are the ones with a history of strong peer review, editors who give a shit, and a lot of readership (and therefore people willing to call other people out).

    The journals cited in this Reason article are all in “fake” journals (e.g. the health ones not even indexed by PubMed!). It’s not much of a story when fake papers have been published in fake journals.

  38. We get it Robby. If this kind of nonsense can make the cut for “scholarly works” then how is a reputable journalist supposed to tell the difference if the experts can’t. I mean who has time to apply reason or common sense to the world around them when you can just look to the right TOP MEN to tell you what to think (or publish).

    Just last week (earlier this one?) there were journolists pimping some garbage about fitness routines making people “right-wing” and now this comes out so how is anyone supposed to know where to go for good truth anymore.

    1. “so how is anyone supposed to know where to go for good truth anymore”

      Not the web – – – – – –

  39. The humanities are important. So are some things in the social sciences. There is evidence that many college classes are no longer good or trustworthy places to learn about either. It would be nice to be able to fix that, but that seems unlikely for now. So young people need to find, and older people need to help them to find, means and places for learning elsewhere. Luckily there are plenty of them. The worry for those in the academic industry is that if enough taxpayers and prospective students catch on to what has become of instruction in college departments in the humanities and social sciences, the long running post-WWII gravy train could derail. Even the best sinecure depends on someone continuing to put up the cash.

    1. Sure, there is value in some of these lines of questioning… The problem with a lot of these things is that they are specifically ignoring scientific research that does exist, and pushing the exact opposite, because they don’t like what reality has to say about things.

      A sane Gender Studies program would be all about how males and females differ, and basically only have minimal overlap in the middle of the distributions on almost every trait that’s measurable. It would go on to talk about how our psychology is completely different and we process basically all inputs from the outside world through completely different mental filters, and come to completely opposite conclusions about the majority of subjects.

      So on and so forth. It’s that they’re liars that’s the problem, not that people inquire into some of these things.

  40. Shorter Soave: picking on retards is wrong!

  41. I’m pretty sure this shows what the authors wanted. I will allow that it’s not entirely because of politics that things like this can get published (academic culture is part of the problem), but if they had forwarded equally outlandish papers without the politics then they would likely not have made it as far.

    There was a paper recently that noted a handful of the historical upsides of Colonialism, something that ought not to be very controversial, but it was yanked simply because weak minded people can’t stand the idea that something bad (Colonialism) can have any upsides (like European technology or human rights) associated with it).

    I’m not sure why there’s any desire to try a protect the idiots publishing this stuff. It really is bizarre.

    1. Yeah, basically any study or objective measuring ever done of areas that were colonized versus those that weren’t shows that the ones that were colonized were way better off at the time, and in fact are STILL ahead of comparable neighbors even today.

      The truth is Africa as a continent would be waaay better off today if they were still run by European countries. If you look at GDPs, income growth, poverty rates, etc Africa went to hell in a hand basket AFTER the Europeans left, and have never really got their shit together. South Africa is doing far worse now than under Apartheid.

      In short, there’s a reason White Mans Burden is a phrase… Thankfully it looks like the Chinese have decided to pick up the slack and go into Africa to straighten shit out! :/

      Fuzzy wuzzy ideas aren’t always the best ideas…

  42. Politically Correct, by induction, means Politically Communistic, just as fascism means christian socialism–verifiable by examination of the term in newspaper morgues published when it first became fashionable. Here we have a variant of the Solomon Asch experiments measuring social pressure on faking of reality. Somebody give Robby a raise!

  43. “This raises legitimate concerns about the academic publishing process, and much of the ridicule the “grievance studies” attract is deserved.

    But it’s also true more generally that if you work very, very hard at fooling people, you will often succeed?and not just in academia.”

    The corollary being if there is a “last place” in which such attempts succeed, Academia should be it. Our best and brightest will not be found in humanities and most social science departments.

    1. Our best and brightest will not be found in humanities and most social science departments.

      What if they’re actual social scientists? The economists many of us, as libertarians, hold dearest had academic affiliations. Many of them based their assertions on the outcome of studies in which the scientific method was employed. Some of them even conducted those studies themselves.

      The same is true for other “social sciences”, including psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.

      The problem, in my view, isn’t specific to the social sciences. It’s the fact that there are practitioners who present (or rely on) derivative data rather than original data, original hypotheses/models, etc. But this problem isn’t only confined to social sciences. We see it in medicine ALL THE TIME. We see it in technology fields. Sometimes the practitioners make all the headlines, but that shouldn’t be the view that we hold of the field.

  44. Surprise: If you work very, very hard at fooling people, you will often succeed.

    Your assumption here seems to be that they had to work hard.

  45. They tricked experts in bullshit into believing that fake bullshit was legitimate bullshit.

    1. Well put

      1. AKA progressive intersectional studies

    2. +1, bullshit=bullshit

  46. And if you work very hard you can Rob a bank.
    The author seems to be reticent to say what is obvious, that these journals have zero credibility and the papers published aren’t vetted to any degree and shouldn’t be taken seriously. If the bar can be cleared by simply working hard to pass off junk then the bar might as well not be there at all.


  48. Not much has changed since Sokal, hmm?

  49. Fish in a barrel.

    Any specialist knows how to interpret published journal articles in the field of expertise. Some here actually write them and know what that is about.

    I know little about quantum physics and many other things. Those who do could fool me easily.

    Yet I bet that most could not fool me so easy in what I do know and use. I read and use peer reviewed journals.

    Even the secondary literature and open journals have a place. You never know.

    So the idea is to discredit social science and all that post modern stuff whatever that is.

    They are stuffing our kids full of PC crap and they will turn into marshmallows or democrats.

    The article pokes fun at the angry dialectical whatever in academics. Look how easily a physicist can make a fake article yet a gender studies or a historian cannot publish a fake article in Nature or the New England Journal of Medicine.

    Well easy target.

    It does not mean that history, sociology, gender studies or anthropology are useless. They all tell a story and reveal something. I am fascinated by people. Weird as we are.

    1. ^ This.

    2. It does not mean that history, sociology, gender studies or anthropology are useless.

      Well then, I’m sure you can find private-sector sponsorship for them. Good luck!


  50. Considering that all of the areas covered by these “journals” (pretty much everything covered by social “science” and all of the “grievance studies”) are nothing more than anti-intellectual, anti-science garbage, this isn’t surprising in the least.

  51. Here’s the deal: Do this as a proper experiment.

    Try sending out nonsense lefty tinged stuff like this, see what gets published.

    Try sending out conservative/libertarian/right leaning outcomes, see what gets published.

    I would bet NOT JUST my left testicle, but BOTH TESTICLES, that none of the right leaning stuff sees the light of day. If it doesn’t fit the narrative, it will never see the light of day. PERIOD. I have that much confidence in the insanity of academia today, especially in certain fields of so called learning.

    The ENTIRE BODY of legitimate scientific research shows there are significant differences in averages between males/females and different ethnicities on some traits. One could make a legitimate argument about WHY, but in the here and now they are 110% scientifically sound, and explain all gaps in outcomes.

    There has never been a study done, EVER, that showed males and females have the same distribution of skills, or overall intelligence.

    Sorry to break it to you all but we don’t actually have the same average IQ either… Even as somebody that has read extensively on this subject, I only recently found out that even that is PC BS. They always use studies from early puberty to make that claim, because it is the only time in human development where we are at parity. Males before and after puberty have higher average IQs, but females hit it first, hence we’re the same for a few years. PLUS greater male variability of course, so more geniuses and dunces.

    1. Yet the ENTIRE BODY of scientific research is simply ignored, because it doesn’t fit the narrative. We can’t admit the sexes aren’t equal in all ways, because then we couldn’t demand 50/50 ratios at every job, even though for many there cannot possibly be enough qualified women…

      Not all science disputes leftist claims IMO. I think being The Gay seems to be biological as per the evidence. But that study that showed peer pressure can also increase gender dysphoria likelihood, well that can’t be talked about rationally in a broader context. That’s the problem.

      Yet any drivel written that does support the narrative is applauded with no questioning. That is the real take away from something like this. One need look no further than that silly mathematicians paper a few weeks back, who merely put out a mathematical model on how it could be possible to have greater variability… Without even necessarily saying that it was a real thing, just how it was possible!


      Just as the world couldn’t progress pre-Renaissance by ignoring the facts about how physics, chemistry, etc worked, so too we cannot progress if we knee cap the productivity of the entire world via diversity hires. If we ignore objective reality for the sake of equality, it will merely drag us all down.

    2. f it doesn’t fit the narrative, it will never see the light of day. PERIOD.

      Are you referring to fake articles or real articles? Because there are lots of real articles with concepts consistent with right wing political narratives that are published in high impact journals. Nature, for example. Do a quick search on Reason for “climate change” and you’ll see some of them.

      1. Obviously it’s not a 100% blackout on all things. Especially when the subject is presently neutrally enough. But having to go out of your way to appear as PC as possible is a form of self censorship in and of itself.

        But the fact is that grant money, being published, and equally, if not more importantly, getting coverage outside of low volume scientific journals in the mainstream press… All highly manipulated and controlled.

        Everything from climate change data, to sex trait differences, and anything else the left doesn’t like is largely black balled, or they try to immediately drag the study/author through the mud.

        If the sciences were uncorrupted by politics the general consensus should be:

        Climate change is happening, and it’s probably mostly natural, but we might contribute a bit. Either way it probably won’t be that bad.

        Men and women overlap a decent amount in the middle of most trait distributions, but we’re dramatically different on almost every front. This explains massive differences in outcomes and preferences.

        Being LGBT is probably largely genetic for most people, but social pressure seems to play a part in at least a minority of cases.

        I could go on. But because the left freaks whenever anything doesn’t support their feelz based opinions, everything they don’t like gets beat down every way possible. Obviously opposing views still get researched a bit, but it is waaaaay slanted.

  52. As for the ethics involved, we-should-train-men-like-dogs is indeed a silly proposition

    It’s so funny that Robby doesn’t even realize that this was done to him.

    1. LOL I know right?

      The entire society has been trained like dogs. Things that come naturally to people are suppressed because we’ve been told these natural inclinations make us evil!

      “Oh my God, I just had it flash through my head to say ‘What the hell is wrong with this woman, she can’t think logically!’ But I know that’s got to be wrong, because women are exactly like men… There’s no difference at all… Heck, gender is just a construct anyway… But if it does exist, which it doesn’t, women are probably the superior sex… I better do 50 Hail Marxs when I get home anyway to purify my mind after committing this thought crime…”

  53. I don’t think they put much effort into this stuff at all…just ask them. You quoted the “editors” but not the authors? Journalism 100.

  54. Congrats to James,Helen and Peter! This is truly next level trolling. All the hoaxes read like a South Park episode and these stupid assholes fell for it. Lol!

  55. Well, let’s face it.
    It doesn’t take much to fool the political correct crowd.

  56. The premise of the article proves the author is a shill.

    1. You mean soave? Sometimes it really looks like it.

  57. “As for the ethics involved, we-should-train-men-like-dogs is indeed a silly proposition, but researchers should feel comfortable exploring and testing crazy premises. Now who’s being too P.C.?” – Answer, feminists. If I made a paper about we-should-train-women-like-dogs it would be considered hate crime. Sometimes I wonder if soave is able to think. Of course he doesn’t get the reason this exists.

  58. The second portion of the paper is a rewrite of a chapter from “Mein Kampf.” Affilia’s editors declined to comment.


  59. “It was well disguised garbage.”

    Was it? You wrote: “conclusions were unwarranted, and the whole thing was written in incomprehensible social-justice gobbledygook.”

    You, as a laymen, identified it as garbage. Yet the professional editors did not? If it was well disguised, wouldn’t they catch it before you did?

  60. “Grievance Studies”? I love that label for these harmful fields of “study”!

    But I like my description of this toxic PC nonsense even better — “Oppression Theology.”

    I think the “theology” aspect is all-important to note. At its core, these academic majors are RELIGIOUS courses based on a BELIEF. Scientific thought and indeed reason itself are not welcome in these college Departments of Hate.

    Foremost in this belief system is that privileged white heterosexual males are a cancer — the evil force ensuring that everything is unjust for everyone else — and always will be. All approved research in these fields are shoehorned into this belief context.

    Kudos to this team of academics — LEFT WING academics — who had the courage end commitment to expose that the Grievance Studies PC kings have no clothes. Or legitimacy.

  61. This is quiet smiling and stupid. I would write a reflection paper about this.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.