Academic journals fell for hoax papers – and some were published
Four phoney papers were accepted and published by journals online as part of an experiment.
A group of academics have managed to dupe several journal publishers into using a series of fake papers in a bid to expose poor standards.
Seven dubious studies were accepted out of 20 papers submitted to academic journals, ranging from false research into rape culture at dog parks, to claims that bodybuilding is “fat-exclusionary”.
The hoax papers were put together by Peter Boghossian, from Portland State University, mathematician James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose, from magazine Areol, to reveal the reality of grievance studies into gender, race and sexuality, which the trio claim is not being covered properly and therefore “corrupting academic research”.
“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.’,” the group said.
Four of the papers were published online, while three others were accepted without having had time to see publication through.
One paper about rape culture in dog parks, which compares gender interactions between dogs with that of human society, gained special recognition for excellence from the Gender, Place & Culture journal.
The group decided to focus almost exclusively on peer-reviewed journals as part of the experiment, and pledged to confess to any journal editor or reviewer if they asked whether the paper was a hoax.
“We intend to use the knowledge we’ve gained from grievance studies to continue to critique them and push for universities to fix this problem and reaffirm their commitment to rigorous, non-partisan knowledge production,” the trio explained.
“We do this because we believe in the university, in rigorous scholarship, in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, and in the importance of social justice.”
The experiment has been given a mixed reception by academia, with some applauding the move, while others claim it undermines fields to which the three have political objections.
