Latest Academia: Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon. (GP&C)

the article remains available for purchase for $260, and there’s no sign the journal will stop selling it anytime soon. The journal’s press office declined to clarify whether it is financially benefiting from the study, but did confirm that they are looking into the issue.

Other articles also go for the same price. Most recently, the journal published an article titled “Trans Objects: materializing queer time in US transmasculine homes”

In 2017, the jIn 2017, the journal’s publisher earned upwards of €530 million—$600 million—in revenue from its academic journals, according to a company press release issued in February.ournal’s publisher earned upwards of €530 million—$600 million—in revenue from its academic journals, according to a company press release issued in February.

So as part of her study, she sat idly by and did nothing while she observed what she believed to be hundreds of rapes? Without so much as calling the authorities?

Sociopath right there.

Secondly, shouldn't these rapist dogs have to register as Sex Offenders now and go door to door with their owners when they move to new neighborhoods?

"Hello, This is my Basset Hound Mr.Snuggles and...oh, sorry about that, he's friendly....I mean REALLY friendly.......that's actually what I'm here about....."

So she doesn't know essentially.

And she can't study the human reaction to rape unless she knows the owners and others in the park considered it rape, which they don't .

And she also cannot say that human reactions to animal actions against animals would be the same as humans against humans in any capacity.

So it's a useless study.

OK, I think this has been revealed as a Hoax! In fact, it's a group of academics, trying to hoax stuff, to show how broken the system is. From the PDF (page 4)

ACCEPTED PAPERS

1. “Dog Park”

Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity in Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon

Published in and recognized as exemplary scholarship by​ ​Gender, Place, and Culture, the leading feminist geography journal and a​ ​top-10 gender studies journal​.

2. “Dildos”

Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use

Published in​ ​Sexuality & Culture, a highly regarded journal in sexualities studies.

3. “Feminist ​Mein Kampf​”

Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism

Accepted by​ ​Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work​, leading feminist social work journal

4. “Fat Bodybuilding”

Who Are They to Judge?: Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding

Published in​ ​Fat Studies​, the flagship journal of the discipline called fat studies.

5. “Joke’s on You”

When the Joke Is on You: A Feminist Perspective on How Positionality Influences Satire

Accepted by​ ​Hypatia, the leading​ ​feminist philosophy​ journal.

6. “Hooters”

An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant

Published in​ ​Sex Roles​, a​ ​leading​ interdisciplinary journal dedicated largely to gender theory

7. “Moon Meetings”

Moon Meetings and the Meaning of Sisterhood: A Poetic Portrayal of Lived Feminist Spirituality

Accepted by​ ​The Journal of Poetry Therapy​, which is a very small, niche journal.

There's many more w/o a final status.

3. “Feminist ​Mein Kampf​”

Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism

Accepted by​ ​Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work​, leading feminist social work journal

In the name of Maria Gonzalez, Ph.D. (fictitious) of the (fictitious) Feminist Activist Collective for Truth (FACT)

Discipline/subdiscipline: feminist social work

Note​: The last two thirds of this paper is ​based upon​ a rewriting of roughly 3600 words of​ ​Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of ​Mein Kampf​, by Adolf Hitler, though it diverges significantly from the original. This chapter is the one in which Hitler lays out in a multi-point plan which we partially reproduced why the Nazi Party is needed and what it requires of its members. The first one third of the paper is our own theoretical framing to make this attempt possible.

Summary​: Feminism which foregrounds individual choice, responsibility, female agency, and strength can be countered by a feminism which unifies in solidarity around the victimhood of the most marginalized women in society.

Purpose​: That we could find​ ​Theory​ to make anything (in this case, part of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of Mein Kampf​ with buzzwords switched in) acceptable to journals if we put it in terms of politically fashionable arguments and existing scholarship. Of note, while the original language and intent of Mein Kampf​ has been significantly changed to make this paper publishable and about feminism, the reliance upon the politics of grievance remains clear, helping to justify our use of the term “grievance studies” for these fields.

Notes on Status​:

Peer reviewed and rejected by ​Feminist Theory

Accepted by ​Affilia​, August 21, 2018

Proofs approved, September 19, 2018

Selected Reviewer Comments​:

“​This is an interesting paper seeking to further the aims of inclusive feminism by attending to the issue of allyship/solidarity.”​ Reviewer 1, ​Affilia

“​I am very sympathetic to the core arguments of the paper, such as the need for solidarity and the problematic nature of neoliberal feminism.” -Reviewer 1,​ ​Feminist Theory

“​While I am extremely sympathetic to this article’s argument and its political positioning, I am afraid that I cannot recommend publication in its current form​.” -Reviewer 2, ​Feminist Theory

“​The reviewers are supportive of the work and noted its potential to generate important dialogue for social workers and feminist scholars.” -Co-Editor in Chief, ​Affilia​, first review

User called name wrote:

3. “Feminist ​Mein Kampf​”

Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism

Accepted by​ ​Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work​, leading feminist social work journal

lol

So the take-away is, the Humanities are just as likely as corrupted as other so-called academic disciplines, such as climate science?

Here's an idea: What if the authors of these faux papers put so much time into making them appear as if they were publication quality sociology papers that they actually were publication quality and helped contribute to their respective fields. I'd be interested to see if anyone in these fields on this site could take a look at these papers.

Obviously there the dog park one with the fake data (see link to article) isn't because the data is fake but spotting fake data is hard to do (I haven't actually seen their data so I can't say how obvious/non-obvious the faking of the data is) . Additionally, do you really expect me to take the word of the authors that they faked their data. These people have an agenda!! To undermine the credibility (lol thats almost a buzzword now) of the peer review process in specific disciplines! They may very well be lying about the fact that they faked the data in the dog study.

As much as people should make an effort to keep the publishing standards of journals high I might argue that this isn't the way to go about doing so - It's already been done before to much better effect (see Alan Soka and please don't misinterpret his aims he wrote a book about the whole thingl) and it undermines most peoples trust in the peer review process (though I'd say that people should look at most studies with a skeptical eye than they currently do).

link to a decent Washington post article about this thing:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950

^^^POTD

I’ll let you in on a few secrets:

These are “academic” journals with low impact factors and will basically publish anything you throw their way as long as you pay. If I wanted to publish something nonsensical like “A study of incels and distance running” and cite LR, I could - as long as I paid the journal and didn’t mind a journal with an impact factor of around 1 or so. Academically speaking, it’s like a slump buster.

“But Muh Peer Review!” Having done this in my former life - the better the journal the more time I’ll spend reviewing it and caring about it. It’s a way for reviewers to be real jerks and nitpick things that may or may not be relevant or something you’re even knowledgeable at. But if you’re too much of a difficult reviewer because you want to preserve good science and good academia, you’ll find this backfire and you’ll be perceived as difficult so when your paper is up for review it won’t get a fair review. You’re simply not a team player, as it were.

And there are “trolls” in academia because the industry breeds subversive people. There have been computer scientists who wrote programs who made fake journal articles and got them published because it was a) funny b) trolling leads to better journals with higher impact factors.

See also : The Sokal Affair

Joe Rogan had this team on his podcast, every paper they've been publishing have been jokes to prove how easy it is to get a nonsensical paper published in academia. They are making a statement that anyone will believe anything that's published, even if it fundamentally doesn't make sense.

I think you can find a copy of the paper here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4_rE1lTPLg

This is something so very Portland.

bwersan wrote:

Joe Rogan had this team on his podcast, every paper they've been publishing have been jokes to prove how easy it is to get a nonsensical paper published in academia. They are making a statement that anyone will believe anything that's published, even if it fundamentally doesn't make sense.

It doesn't prove this. It proves it's possible to get nonsense published in nonsense cultural studies journals, but not all fields were so susceptible. In other words, not anyone will believe anything that's published, nor will they publish anything.

See here for an explanation:

TL;DR is that's some fields resisted the BS. Every single sociology journal rejected their papers. That's not to say there aren't sociologists who sympathize with the real versions of the types of fake work submitted, but that writing fake BS isn't going to work in fields that care about data analysis. Perhaps if you hammered away you could force some papers through in some low-prestige journals.

But if people think that this type of thing is the norm in social science, they're really just misinformed. Mainstream journals in political science, Econ, sociology will resist this stuff without much issue, as will the tier-2 journals in sub-fields of those disciplines.

Not denying that this fake crap doesn't exist. It does and the study proves its point. But there's a certain irony in how people who are critical of those in academia who are uncritical fail to apply critical thinking to interpreting this dust-up.

You'd be surprised.

Journal rejection is extremely common based on a number of things. If I wrote a paper about the mating habits of distance runners with a fair amount of data from LR, tier 1 journals won't waste their time (unless I mention the right buzzword, or am affiliated with a specific university.) Tier 2 journals will probably spend a bit of time but not much. If they do give you the time of day, you have critiques to clean up the article and resubmit it. The more clever prankster would do research who specifically is reviewing the article and cater towards them. If you know Dr. X from ABC univ is on the review section of the journal and they work on a specific topic, you'd try to casually link it to that topic. Eventually you reach tier 3/4/5 journals (the academic equivalent of the Turkey Trot) and most will publish anything. They're thirsty as long as the check clears. These awesome academics just wanted *a* journal to bite on them, not a top flight one.

As for data analysis - you know that most experiments have a replication issue, and that data can be massaged and faked. And even if you faked data, a public and brutal firing is a super rare event. Most stuff like this is done quietly, so you can always find a job. In the past, I sat on an investigation committee to see if we were going to revoke a PhD from a student who basically committed Mike Rossi-like cheatings. Despite dead to rights evidence, he got to keep it because the harm to the university outweighed the cost of letting someone keep their degree.

"OH NOES YOU WASTED THE REVIEWERS TIME!" Well, welcome to academia. That's the life. It's no different from wasting time on grad students who should never been admitted in the first place, or being stuck on BS committees.