Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 76

Thread: Conceptual penis as social construct: hoax paper easily passes peer review and is published

  1. Top | #1
    Veteran Member Axulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    3,968
    Archived
    10,958
    Total Posts
    14,926
    Rep Power
    64

    Conceptual penis as social construct: hoax paper easily passes peer review and is published


    The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial.

    That’s how we began. We used this preposterous sentence to open a “paper” consisting of 3,000 words of utter nonsense posing as academic scholarship. Then a peer-reviewed academic journal in the social sciences accepted and published it.

    This paper should never have been published. Titled, “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct,” our paper “argues” that “The penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a gender-performative, highly fluid social construct.” As if to prove philosopher David Hume’s claim that there is a deep gap between what is and what ought to be, our should-never-have-been-published paper was published in the open-access (meaning that articles are freely accessible and not behind a paywall), peer-reviewed journal Cogent Social Sciences. (In case the PDF is removed, we’ve archived it.)

    Assuming the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” we wrote an absurd paper loosely composed in the style of post-structuralist discursive gender theory. The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions. We made no attempt to find out what “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” actually means. We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.
    http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/...ender-studies/

    I can't say I'm surprised. So much of what passes for social "science" these days is just mumbo jumbo bullshit.

  2. Top | #2
    Contributor repoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    6,604
    Archived
    2,280
    Total Posts
    8,884
    Rep Power
    74
    This paper is now a hate crime in Canada.

    /s for all you dummies here.

  3. Top | #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    16,724
    Archived
    42,293
    Total Posts
    59,017
    Rep Power
    87
    That's pretty funny.

  4. Top | #4
    Contributor Nice Squirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    6,083
    Archived
    20,921
    Total Posts
    27,004
    Rep Power
    65
    Cogent Social Sciences is a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences
    Real rigor!

  5. Top | #5
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,789
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    26,530
    Rep Power
    70
    Someone didn't do their job.

  6. Top | #6
    Contributor Nice Squirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    6,083
    Archived
    20,921
    Total Posts
    27,004
    Rep Power
    65
    What job?

    Jokingly I have signed up s a peer reviewer on an open access journal. But I thin the article goes on to stress the problem with open access journals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptic
    One of the biggest questions facing peer-reviewed publishing is, “Are pay-to-publish, open-access journals the future of academic publishing?” We seem to have answered that question with a large red, “No!”

    There is, however, an asterisk on that “No!” That is, the peer-review process in pay-to-publish, open-access journals cannot achieve quality assurance without extremely stringent safeguards (which will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the debate). There’s nothing necessarily or intrinsically wrong with either open-access or pay-to-publish journals, and they may ultimately prove valuable. However, in the short term, pay-to-publish may be a significant problem because of the inherent tendencies toward conflicts of interest (profits trump academic quality, that is, the profit motive is dangerous because ethics are expensive).

  7. Top | #7
    Super Moderator Bronzeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    6,810
    Archived
    7,568
    Total Posts
    14,378
    Rep Power
    40
    We get threads of this sort on TFT all the time, but the the thread author is earnest and sincere.

  8. Top | #8
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    21,766
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,319
    Rep Power
    74
    Peer review means they believe normal statistical methods were used and the data is not likely fraudulent.

    It is not a comment on conclusions.

    That is left up to "experts" in the fields.

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA, California
    Posts
    2,919
    Archived
    5,710
    Total Posts
    8,629
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Peer review means they believe normal statistical methods were used and the data is not likely fraudulent.

    It is not a comment on conclusions.

    That is left up to "experts" in the fields.
    That's not what it means, in the quantitative sciences, let alone in the these areas of "sociology" which are not even social sciences but *bad philosophy.* "Normal statistical methods" are irrelevant. Even in the natural sciences, when a paper is submitted for review it is given to relevant experts to review and the process involves more than a mere check for the soundness of your statistical methods.

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,789
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    26,530
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Peer review means they believe normal statistical methods were used and the data is not likely fraudulent.

    It is not a comment on conclusions.

    That is left up to "experts" in the fields.
    That's not what it means, in the quantitative sciences, let alone in the these areas of "sociology" which are not even social sciences but *bad philosophy.* "Normal statistical methods" are irrelevant. Even in the natural sciences, when a paper is submitted for review it is given to relevant experts to review and the process involves more than a mere check for the soundness of your statistical methods.
    Yeah, there's an editor involved who will check the whole thing. The editor(s) also happen to have some expertise in the science, at least in the same general field. If you look at the site, they talk about their peer-review process which is why I wrote earlier someone did not do their job and Nice Squirrel commented on that.

Similar Threads

  1. Fake Peer Review
    By George S in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2019, 12:56 PM
  2. I can easily prove that God does not exist, but...
    By Copernicus in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 235
    Last Post: 12-12-2018, 11:21 AM
  3. The case for abolishing traditional peer review
    By Perspicuo in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-09-2015, 09:45 PM
  4. Race is a social construct; except when it isn't
    By Trausti in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-09-2015, 02:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •