I found it.

Instrumental self-flagellation:

https://opinionator.blogs.nyti.../dear-white-america/

Bret Weinstein’s comment (of Evergreen State fame):

“What this set of hoaxes reveals is: Idea Laundering

These fields aren't engaged in actual study, discipline names notwithstanding. They simply grant "peer reviewed" status to dubious political arguments.

The hoax, by publishing sanctioned garbage, reveals the "peers" as fakes.”

These stories are not from my world so I have to ask:

Who is paying for this stuff?

Usually, the author is--not that it makes me feel any better.

I don't publish or read anything in the journals that were hoaxed, but the whole thing doesn't ring true in my experience with academic publishing. I realize that was part of the point of the hoaxes in the first place. In my area, in Mr. Nina's area, articles are thoroughly vetted and the reviewers (including me and Mr. Nina) spend a long time reading the manuscripts and commenting before giving a recommendation. I imagine P*D can say the same thing. These are journals in the "hard" sciences, though. I will admit to having some things pass to me from business-related, human resource/organizational development publications that I've not given good reviews to, but not because they were crazy. Rather, they contained poorly documented or substantiated claims. In other words, the articles "stuck to narrative" at the expense of producing hard data or even explaining their conclusions beyond what they had "observed." (Kind of like this comment )

So maybe it is discipline-specific. There are definitely "vanity" journals that exist solely to publish anything the author is willing to pay for. I wonder, though: if a job candidate were to submit a resume with the majority of their publications coming from these vanity types of journals, would anyone notice or care?

Found this on twitter, a related topic:

"If there's one thing I've learned from twitter it is that if mras and white nationalists got their own university departments they would be as grievance mongering and self-pitying as today's grievance studies departments."

('mras' = men's rights advocates)

Back to Nina's point from November about refereeing. I'll only speak to my discipline, but I think the points generalize. At high quality journals, the refereeing is extremely good. At mid-quality journals, the refereeing is often very good, but there is a little more variance. At lower quality, but still professional, journals the quality of refereeing is even more variable and it's more likely that bad stuff gets through.

But the journals in question here reflect something the hoaxers identify and take advantage of. These journals have a clear political/moral point of view, and that POV can color how people read submissions. Hew to the POV and garbage can slip through. Worse, the POV itself isn't coherent enough for people to see deductive errors or empirical boo boos. It's all about slinging around mumbo-jumbo jargon in the right order, or so the hoaxers believe (and demonstrate).

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Found this on twitter, a related topic:

"If there's one thing I've learned from twitter it is that if mras and white nationalists got their own university departments they would be as grievance mongering and self-pitying as today's grievance studies departments."

('mras' = men's rights advocates)

What is a "grievance study"? The twitterer's bias is showing.

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Found this on twitter, a related topic:

"If there's one thing I've learned from twitter it is that if mras and white nationalists got their own university departments they would be as grievance mongering and self-pitying as today's grievance studies departments."

('mras' = men's rights advocates)

What is a "grievance study"? The twitterer's bias is showing.

http://danny.oz.au/danny/humour/Gilligan

Portland State is trying to punish one of the participants in the usual way.

http://reason.com/blog/2019/01...-misconduct-hoax-stu

Comments Pinker:

"This strikes me (and every colleague I've spoken with) as an attempt to weaponize an important [principle] of academic ethics in order to punish a scholar for expressing an unpopular opinion," wrote Pinker. "If scholars feel they have been subject to unfair criticism, they should explain why they think the critic is wrong. It should be beneath them to try to punish and silence him."

Not this **** again!

I’m not sure why this would be functionally different than the Dement study. You’re testing using a hypothetical.

IRBs are designed to prevent unethical practices that harm the subjects. Good examples include the Tuskegee abuse, or the more nuanced Milgram study on obedience. I don't think this "experiment" fits what IRBs are supposed to prevent. It DOES strike me as an ex post retribution.

Recusing self....

On an IRB, are we?

I see nothing, I know nothing, I hear nothing.