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

Sep 2018
4,647
816
cleveland ohio
#31
Look at all the papers published supporting climate change that the models in those papers missed their projections.

While the models in the "Denier" were correct.

But then again your whole post is a lie 1/2 Truth is a 100% Lie.. You see the people you call DENIERS have not denied Climate has changed is changing and will continue to change..

While pre-industrial CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion were almost zero, they increased to 26.6 Gt in 2004 and 35.9 Gt in 2014. This caused an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) in 2015, a more than 40% increase compared to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. The IPCC states: „It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century“. Nowadays, it is well known and increasingly accepted by a wider public that the industrialisation is based on the increasing burning of fossil fuels and that the subsequent emissions of CO2 leads to global warming. Deforestation and industrial agriculture with its growing livestock production are further contributing factors.

Continuing on the current path will lead to potentially catastrophic consequences for billions of people including rising sea levels, thawing of permafrost, the expansion of deserts and arid zones as well as more frequent extreme weather events, which will very likely lead to additional tens of millions of refugees during the next decades.

Critical Scientists - Climate Change
 
Apr 2013
34,305
23,176
Left coast
#33
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
And equally important, from your source:

Factual Reporting: MIXED
 
Nov 2012
8,885
3,593
Chicago
#34
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
This is what one ends up with when 99% of a universities professors are Liberal/Socialist snowflakes. Just look at how many Harvard educated Lawyers were in favor of abridging Judge Kavanaugh's right to due process. Our universities have become a joke, as far as the teaching of humanities is concerned. Thank god they can't screw up the sciences. :think:
 
Likes: Sabcat
Nov 2005
7,093
1,749
California
#35
The funny thing is i don't think that you looked into their study. You just attacked the source then went on some little rant about this journal and that then said something about churches because, well you enjoy trying to reframe the argument.
You still don't understand what I said.
I never attacked the source.
I said where they chose to publish their various articles was a known shoddy academic journal.

It would be like Mike Jones working for Fox News.
He does a story about how he can submit any shoddy story to "shoddystorynews.com" and they'll report it.
Mike Jones broadcasts this report on Fox News.

Did I attack Mike Jones or Fox News? NO.
I pointed out that "shoddystorynews.com" is a bad resource that anybody could publish crap on.
That doesn't mean anything about media in general.



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-motivated scholarship, radical skepticism and cultural constructivism.

Part I: Introduction

Something has gone wrong in the university—especially in certain fields within the humanities. Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem.

We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as “cultural studies” or “identity studies” (for example, gender studies) or “critical theory” because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of “theory” which arose in the late sixties. As a result of this work, we have come to call these fields “grievance studies” in shorthand because of their common goal of problematizing aspects of culture in minute detail in order to attempt diagnoses of power imbalances and oppression rooted in identity.
I bold-faced the portion I exposed as a lie.
NO. These are clearly NOT "respected peer-reviewed journals".
I proved that. These are piece of crap journals which were selected because they were piece of crap journals.

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.
 
Apr 2013
34,305
23,176
Left coast
#36
There has recently been a proliferation of "pay to play" type phoney academic journals that all have really well designed websites and a slick presentation and claim to be peer reviewed but are a scam. Desperate researchers and people with agendas shell out their dollars to try and make their bullshit appear credible.

I didn't check the sources here and am not saying this is the case in this thread but they do exist and are proliferating in Dotard's alternative fact world.
 
Likes: foundit66
Dec 2013
30,357
18,422
Beware of watermelons
#37
You still don't understand what I said.
I never attacked the source.
I said where they chose to publish their various articles was a known shoddy academic journal.

It would be like Mike Jones working for Fox News.
He does a story about how he can submit any shoddy story to "shoddystorynews.com" and they'll report it.
Mike Jones broadcasts this report on Fox News.

Did I attack Mike Jones or Fox News? NO.
I pointed out that "shoddystorynews.com" is a bad resource that anybody could publish crap on.
That doesn't mean anything about media in general.




I bold-faced the portion I exposed as a lie.
NO. These are clearly NOT "respected peer-reviewed journals".
I proved that. These are piece of crap journals which were selected because they were piece of crap journals.

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.

As i said.

I don't think you ever looked at their paper


I had also started a thread on their study itself but i guess...

#2
We undertook this project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupting academic research. Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been to reboot these conversations. We hope this will give people—especially those who believe in liberalism, progress, modernity, open inquiry, and social justice—a clear reason to look at the identitarian madness coming out of the academic and activist left and say, “No, I will not go along with that. You do not speak for me.”

This document is a first look at our project and an initial attempt to grapple with what we’re learning and what it means. Because of its length and detail, it is organized as follows, putting the factual information up front and more detailed explanations thereafter.

Our methodology, which is central to contextualizing our claims;
A summary of this project from its beginning until we were eventually exposed and forced to go public before we could conclude our research;
An explanation of why we did this;
A summary of the problem and why it matters;
A clear explanation of how this project came to be;
The results of our study, including a full list of all of the papers we submitted, their final outcomes, and relevant reviewer comments to date;
A discussion of the significance of the results;
A summary of what may come next


Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship - Areo
 
Nov 2005
7,093
1,749
California
#38
You have a habit of repeating yourself to the extent that you ignore the relevant replies and somehow think your actions are justified.
They aren't. You either blatantly ignore what you can't address or you're too lazy to take the time to comprehend what others are actually saying.


I don't think you ever looked at their paper
I have replied directly to the heart of the paper.
You mindlessly claimed I was "attacking the source" when that was a dumb lie.
I did read the paper.
I have exposed exactly why the article is flawed.

THE ARTICLE LIES in claiming they are publishing in "respected peer-reviewed journals".
These weren't "respected" peer-reviewed journals. Anybody who looks at the actual journals and their rankings will see they are publishing in crappy journals.
A crappy article published in a crappy journal. NOT NEWSWORTHY.


I had also started a thread on their study itself but i guess...
Yes. I saw that you repeated the same crap in another thread. Your posting is incredibly redundant while you fail to acknowledge the shortcomings in what you point out.
I guess I should have taken your approach and just mindlessly repeated my statements in this thread into your other thread?


We undertook this project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupting academic research. Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been to reboot these conversations. We hope this will give people—especially those who believe in liberalism, progress, modernity, open inquiry, and social justice—a clear reason to look at the identitarian madness coming out of the academic and activist left and say, “No, I will not go along with that. You do not speak for me.”
It's funny that you quote this section, but you don't seem to appreciate the irony.
Your postings attempt to sweep with a broad brush. You attempt to pretend that this article speaks for academia across the board, when it clearly does not. The authors never state nor imply that.

Even worse, you present no delineation between valid research and invalid research.
From the statement above, we could actually try to examine different areas like climate change and gender identity to see what the experts in the field actually think on the subject.
But you don't want that. Cause that type of examination does not live up to what you want to pretend the article is saying...
 
Likes: RNG
Jul 2014
12,456
7,495
massachusetts
#39
This is what one ends up with when 99% of a universities professors are Liberal/Socialist snowflakes. Just look at how many Harvard educated Lawyers were in favor of abridging Judge Kavanaugh's right to due process. Our universities have become a joke, as far as the teaching of humanities is concerned. Thank god they can't screw up the sciences. :think:
That's just because Harvard educated lawyers have integrity, I'll bet the facullty at Liberty University was firmly behind the weenie waver.....
 
Likes: RNG
Nov 2005
7,093
1,749
California
#40
This is what one ends up with when 99% of a universities professors are Liberal/Socialist snowflakes. Just look at how many Harvard educated Lawyers were in favor of abridging Judge Kavanaugh's right to due process. Our universities have become a joke, as far as the teaching of humanities is concerned. Thank god they can't screw up the sciences. :think:
What do you mean by the portion in red?
The due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.​

Who was asking for Kavanaugh to deprived of life, liberty or property without due process?
 

Similar Discussions