Twitter | Search | |
Gwen C. Katz
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.
This essay, although hopefully accessible to everyone, is the most thorough breakdown of the study and written for those who are already somewhat familiar with the problems of ideologically-motivat…
Areo Areo @AreoMagazine
Reply Retweet Like More
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
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.
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
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.
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
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."
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
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).
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
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.
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
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.
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
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.
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
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.
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
Sixth: This. Their "study" is itself bad research, ergo we can throw it, and its conclusions, out on its ear.
Reply Retweet Like
Aaron Kashtan Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
There have been high-profile cases of scientific journals publishing fake papers.
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
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?
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @chibbitycheee
IKR this whole thing is DEFINITELY NOT a huge clickbait exercise
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @aaronkashtan
Who remembers that fake human cloning study that got published in Science?
Reply Retweet Like
Ben Robertson Oct 3
Replying to @mbeisen @gwenckatz
Starting assumptions 1. There can be no controls b/c there are no right-leaning journals. There are objective journals & leftist ones 2. They have no biases. Only leftists have biases. 3. Conclusions are foregone & do not need supporting. Instead they support the data as data.
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @BenRobertson @mbeisen
Yep.
Reply Retweet Like
Gwen C. Katz Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
Conclusion: This hoax doesn't prove anything except that the hoaxers are trolls. Thank you for your time. Here are some bear cubs.
Reply Retweet Like
T Karney Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
Thank you for your time; here are some fluffies.
Reply Retweet Like
Summer Saraf Oct 3
Replying to @gwenckatz
Yes! And as a recent example that's huge here, this food scientist at Cornell is in big trouble for "academic misconduct" and falsifying research. Bad faith scientists are bad (and his research was peer-reviewed and published so...):
Reply Retweet Like