> I wonder if that ‘progressive stack’ in the news could be written into a paper that says white males in college shouldn’t be allowed to speak in class (or have their emails answered by the instructor), and, for good measure, be asked to sit in the floor in chains so they can ‘experience reparations. That was our “Progressive Stack” paper. The answer seems to be yes, and feminist philosophy titan Hypatia has been surprisingly warm to it.
> Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the parodied views.
The German's didn't go in to WWII because they were just terrible people. They had a very long list of quite justifiable grievances after WWI. If they hadn't been proud supporters of eugenics they'd be just another entry in a long list of bloodthirsty European states.
EDIT So here is a selected paragraph (from 3 random candidates) from said text. It isn't exactly anti-factual.
"Thus, from a certain vanity, which is always a cousin of stupidity, the great mass of politicians will keep far removed from all really weighty plans for the future, in order not to lose the momentary sympathy of the great mob. The success and significance of such a politician lie then exclusively in the present, and do not exist for posterity. But small minds are little troubled by this; they are content."
I'm imagine he advocated for exercise and a good diet at some point. Why we need to try to find something useful the man said is utterly beyond me.
I don't think that is a reasonable argument. It depends on what the chapter was talking about. If it made a big point about Jewish conspiracies and keeping the American people ethnically pure then that is a problem. If it was 1,000 words complaining about vision-less politicians then what is the issue?
But yes you have a fair point that just because Hilter said X doesn't automatically invalidate X. The old "the nazis drank milk so dont drink milk" fallacy
However, lots of junk is also published in science and engineering, it's just not as egregious and apparent.
That’s not a peer reviewed journal — it’s a publication that will publish anything for a fee.
All of the papers in the original article are peer reviewed.
Although I kind of enjoyed the original Sokal paper - I was a subscriber to Lingua Franca, where Sokal announced the hoax in the first place - I think the message of this iteration is more that: "if you work hard to game the system, you can indeed find a hole and game the system". This finding is not that interesting.
"Three scholars [...] spent 10 months writing 20 hoax papers [...] and submitted them to "the best journals in the relevant fields." Of the 20, seven papers were accepted, four were published online, and three were in process when the authors [stopped].
We set out with three basic rules: (1) we’ll focus almost exclusively upon ranked peer-reviewed journals in the field, the higher the better and at the top of their subdisciplines whenever possible; (2) we will not pay to publish any paper (...)
The retraction notice for the "Dog Park" paper is currently the most recent publication on that site.
These were "real" publication, with peer- and/or editorial-review. Not the same thing by a long shot.
> “They told me to add some more recent references and do a bit of reformatting,” he said.
If the hoax papers were published in "predatory scam journals," they're engaged in an entirely different type of predatory scam than the "get me off your fucking mailing list" computer science journal. Sort of like the difference between fake news and herbal Viagra spam/scams.
> Even the "get me off your fucking mailing list" paper went through peer review.
>> “They told me to add some more recent references and do a bit of reformatting,” he said.
Obviously not any peer review process that deserves the name. That must have been an entirely automatic (or even automated) bit of feedback.
Which is why they were spamming people.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Advan...
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affilia
 - https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/03/dog-rape-hoax-papers-pluc...
published in 1958 when he was editor of the IRE (now IEEE) Transactions on Information Theory.
Gender and Identity Studies?
This tweet contains screenshots of the review process of the dog park paper, and claims they received constructive feedback. As originally written, the journal wouldn't publish it.
Edit: Hah — interestingly enough, The Atlantic refers to this as "the new Sokal Hoax" in the <title> tag and the URL, but as "an Audacious Hoax" in the page proper.
I cracked here.
1) how likely can renowned academic get published with gibberish
2) compare #1 to how likely can an unknown get published with gibberish.
3) how likely can an unknown get a serious paper published when it was actually the renowned academic who wrote it.
4) compare #3 to how likely a renowned academic can get a serious paper published when it was actually the unknown / lesser known peer who wrote it.
Peer review is also broken. A lot of people recognize that.
The fact that we don't publish negative results is a tragedy. We're losing so much collective knowledge that way. We learn by failing, but somehow we're ashamed to fail in public in academia.
I personally hope that arXiv and things like it keep taking off. And that we end up funding respected people to review articles publicly. And that we end up funding people to try to replicate interesting results, and publish their findings.
And that the news media learns to explain to people what p scores are, and what p-hacking is, and what the half-life of knowledge is, and that one new research article with p=0.05 doesn't mean jack squat. Basically the news media shouldn't cover leading research, it's just too noisy and it's difficult to understand the context and relevance of new research.
> “Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.”
Pushing political agendas and keeping forever-students employed?
Nature, one of the most impactful, is 40.
This is apparently the original account of the hoax. They had to call it off prematurely because they started getting media attention from places like the Wall Street Journal. I think the hoax is real.
The public seems to think that peer review indicates that something is true, but that's clearly not the case because we have no way of verifying any of the data used, etc.
The paper that got published in a top journal "Human Reaction to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon", while silly, doesn't seem like it has to be rejected if it were an honest paper that actually did the experiments they said they did. It seems no more silly than the lobster nonsense Jordan Peterson peddles and conservatives eat up. I don't personally think it's a useful paper, but most individual papers rarely are, even in CS.
Not sure about these journals, but a lot of peer review is blind, so the reviewers do not have access to any of this information intentionally.
Serotonin and aggression: insights gained from a lobster model system and speculations on the role of amine neurons in a complex behavior [pdf]
Actually that's based on real science. It's not social studies...
This sort of hoax seems to happen every few years, but often to journals that will explicitly accept anything and let anyone who wants to give a talk, so long as it's related to the journal's mission (which means there's nothing alarmist about it).