Hoax papers: The shoddy, absurd and unethical side of academia
I saw something like this in the sundays, and the IT have joined in the debate. To my surprise! We love a grievance here, and nursing one quietly for decades or even centuries. We are supposed to value forgiveness, but where's the fun in that? Grievance is free, but then you realise it changes you into another person, and the real cost is high.
Studying grievances such as slavery-by-europeans or skin-colour-discrimination, or our penal laws and famines achieves nothing if it is not comparative. The unis / third level sector costs the state €2.2 billion a year, with about 200,000 enrolled.
Academia's value system is based on "tenure", a medieval concept where a prof is now being paid for life and not on a shorter-term contract. Above that, publishing papers that are "peer reviewed" by their mates and quoted in turn, raises your status. Very often a paper is 95% a rehash of other papers, with 5% saying something new.
Even then, the public who are paying the 2 billion pa can't often read the papers / research because they are behind a paywall at Jstor and the like. We pay, the profs get the credit, someone else gets the money. This seems wrong.
The students, whose parents/state are subbing the €2,000,000,000 pa, are not even on the ladder and will be rewarded with a coloured piece of parchment after 3-4 years, that could perhaps be finished in 1-2 years.
Sooo, 3 brave academics, Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian, submitted 20 cráp papers that were all "outlandish or intentionally broken.." with "some little bit of lunacy or depravity"... 7 papers were accepted for publication and 4 were published "before the hoaxers were rumbled".
The process of saying the right thing to the machinery of thousands of "journals" could lead to a career because, hey, if they're so lax at the gate then clearly the system can be gamed.
Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship - Areo
Feminist glaciology? Okay, we’ll copy it and write a feminist astronomy paper that argues feminist and queer astrology should be considered part of the science of astronomy, which we’ll brand as intrinsically sexist. Reviewers were very enthusiastic about that idea.