Academic journals are caught up in massive hoax involving 20 FAKE papers on 'dog rape culture'

Dec 2013
30,357
18,422
Beware of watermelons
#1
Academic journals have been caught up in a massive hoax involving 20 fake papers.

Researchers published fake and convoluted papers on 'dog rape culture', 'a conceptual penis' and even re-wrote a chapter of Mein Kampf.

Their aim was to expose how 'absurdities' get published in legitimate peer-reviewed academic papers due to a lack of critical review.

In total the team of three researchers wrote 20 hoax papers on a field of study loosely defined as 'grievance studies'.

These papers – seven of which were accepted and four published online – were based on just 'nutty or inhumane' ideas that they ran with.

The authors claim their prank shows that higher education's fixation with identity politics has created 'absurd and horrific' scholarship, according to an in-depth piece by Wall Street Journal.


Academic journals are caught up in massive hoax involving 20 FAKE papers | Daily Mail Online
 
May 2018
2,201
1,488
USA
#2
more rightwing fake "agitprop" "news"





RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market tabloid newspaper owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust and published in London. Has a strong conservative bias and has a poor track record with fact checkers. (7/19/2016) Updated (4/21/2017)
Source: Home | Daily Mail Online
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
63,601
24,917
Colorado
#3
Academic journals have been caught up in a massive hoax involving 20 fake papers.

Researchers published fake and convoluted papers on 'dog rape culture', 'a conceptual penis' and even re-wrote a chapter of Mein Kampf.

Their aim was to expose how 'absurdities' get published in legitimate peer-reviewed academic papers due to a lack of critical review.

In total the team of three researchers wrote 20 hoax papers on a field of study loosely defined as 'grievance studies'.

These papers – seven of which were accepted and four published online – were based on just 'nutty or inhumane' ideas that they ran with.

The authors claim their prank shows that higher education's fixation with identity politics has created 'absurd and horrific' scholarship, according to an in-depth piece by Wall Street Journal.


Academic journals are caught up in massive hoax involving 20 FAKE papers | Daily Mail Online
Like this is news??

Look at all the published papers denying climate change.
 
Nov 2005
7,093
1,749
California
#4
The article is crap.
Not all academic journals are created equally. SOME are pure crap. Academia understands and recognizes this.
The headline says "Academic Journals are caught up in ..."
That's like pointing to a scandal in a church and saying "Christians are guilty of ..."

ANYBODY can put together a "scientific journal". (By analogy, anybody can make a church as well...)
The real interesting item is THEY ARE RANKED within academia based on various standards.
The article mentions an academic journal: Gender, Place & Culture
Gender, Place, and Culture
H index = 55
SJR bouncing around a pathetic rating of 1

Now look at the main page for academic journal ratings
SJR : Scientific Journal Rankings
H index and SJR ratings much higher for real and reputable academic journals.

You don't even find an academic journal rated below 1 until you get to #4372 on the list.

If you want something comparable, try judging religion by how easy it is to make a church. :rolleyes:
A televangelist wants his followers to pay for a $54 million private jet. It’s his fourth plane.
 
Sep 2018
4,647
816
cleveland ohio
#6
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]

The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the tree's fruit is in a likewise good condition. This can also give a false impression of the quality of the fruit (since it is only a sample and is not a representative sample).

Cherry picking has a negative connotation as the practice neglects, overlooks or directly suppresses evidence that could lead to a complete picture.

A concept sometimes confused with cherry picking is the idea of gathering only the fruit that is easy to harvest, while ignoring other fruit that is higher up on the tree and thus more difficult to obtain (see low-hanging fruit).

Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to an argument, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available. Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to reality.
 
Sep 2018
4,647
816
cleveland ohio
#7
more rightwing fake "agitprop" "news"





RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market tabloid newspaper owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust and published in London. Has a strong conservative bias and has a poor track record with fact checkers. (7/19/2016) Updated (4/21/2017)
Source: Home | Daily Mail Online
is this even true, some one needs to fact check
 
Oct 2017
41
11
in your head, rent free
#10
Guess Ass Cheeks (aka Gluteus Maximus) rejected the original source material because it didn't originate from a Pravda-like extreme-leftist propaganda rag.

Guess he'll be calling 'The Economist' more rightwing fake "agitprop" "news" ...

Another set of fake papers takes aim at social science’s nether regions


Home » The Economist

The Economist

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: The Economist is an English-language weekly news magazine owned by the Economist Group and edited in offices in London. The Economist presents news with centrist views and straightforward non-biased reporting. They carefully label opinion pieces which earns them a least biased rating.
 
Likes: Sabcat

Similar Discussions