Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Straha »

Nature wrote:
The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense.

Over the past two years, computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, has catalogued computer-generated papers that made it into more than 30 published conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013. Sixteen appeared in publications by Springer, which is headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany, and more than 100 were published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), based in New York. Both publishers, which were privately informed by Labbé, say that they are now removing the papers.

Among the works were, for example, a paper published as a proceeding from the 2013 International Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering, held in Chengdu, China. (The conference website says that all manuscripts are “reviewed for merits and contents”.) The authors of the paper, entitled ‘TIC: a methodology for the construction of e-commerce’, write in the abstract that they “concentrate our efforts on disproving that spreadsheets can be made knowledge-based, empathic, and compact”. (Nature News has attempted to contact the conference organizers and named authors of the paper but received no reply*; however at least some of the names belong to real people. The IEEE has now removed the paper).

*Update: One of the named authors replied to Nature News on 25 February. He said that he first learned of the article when conference organizers notified his university in December 2013; and that he does not know why he was a listed co-author on the paper. "The matter is being looked into by the related investigators," he said.

How to create a nonsense paper
Labbé developed a way to automatically detect manuscripts composed by a piece of software called SCIgen, which randomly combines strings of words to produce fake computer-science papers. SCIgen was invented in 2005 by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge to prove that conferences would accept meaningless papers — and, as they put it, “to maximize amusement” (see ‘Computer conference welcomes gobbledegook paper’). A related program generates random physics manuscript titles on the satirical website arXiv vs. snarXiv. SCIgen is free to download and use, and it is unclear how many people have done so, or for what purposes. SCIgen’s output has occasionally popped up at conferences, when researchers have submitted nonsense papers and then revealed the trick.

Labbé does not know why the papers were submitted — or even if the authors were aware of them. Most of the conferences took place in China, and most of the fake papers have authors with Chinese affiliations. Labbé has emailed editors and authors named in many of the papers and related conferences but received scant replies; one editor said that he did not work as a program chair at a particular conference, even though he was named as doing so, and another author claimed his paper was submitted on purpose to test out a conference, but did not respond on follow-up. Nature has not heard anything from a few enquiries.

“I wasn’t aware of the scale of the problem, but I knew it definitely happens. We do get occasional e-mails from good citizens letting us know where SCIgen papers show up,” says Jeremy Stribling, who co-wrote SCIgen when he was at MIT and now works at VMware, a software company in Palo Alto, California.

“The papers are quite easy to spot,” says Labbé, who has built a website where users can test whether papers have been created using SCIgen. His detection technique, described in a study1 published in Scientometrics in 2012, involves searching for characteristic vocabulary generated by SCIgen. Shortly before that paper was published, Labbé informed the IEEE of 85 fake papers he had found. Monika Stickel, director of corporate communications at IEEE, says that the publisher “took immediate action to remove the papers” and “refined our processes to prevent papers not meeting our standards from being published in the future”. In December 2013, Labbé informed the IEEE of another batch of apparent SCIgen articles he had found. Last week, those were also taken down, but the web pages for the removed articles give no explanation for their absence.

Ruth Francis, UK head of communications at Springer, says that the company has contacted editors, and is trying to contact authors, about the issues surrounding the articles that are coming down. The relevant conference proceedings were peer reviewed, she confirms — making it more mystifying that the papers were accepted.

The IEEE would not say, however, whether it had contacted the authors or editors of the suspected SCIgen papers, or whether submissions for the relevant conferences were supposed to be peer reviewed. “We continue to follow strict governance guidelines for evaluating IEEE conferences and publications,” Stickel said.

A long history of fakes
Labbé is no stranger to fake studies. In April 2010, he used SCIgen to generate 102 fake papers by a fictional author called Ike Antkare [see pdf]. Labbé showed how easy it was to add these fake papers to the Google Scholar database, boosting Ike Antkare’s h-index, a measure of published output, to 94 — at the time, making Antkare the world's 21st most highly cited scientist. Last year, researchers at the University of Granada, Spain, added to Labbé’s work, boosting their own citation scores in Google Scholar by uploading six fake papers with long lists to their own previous work2.

Labbé says that the latest discovery is merely one symptom of a “spamming war started at the heart of science” in which researchers feel pressured to rush out papers to publish as much as possible.

There is a long history of journalists and researchers getting spoof papers accepted in conferences or by journals to reveal weaknesses in academic quality controls — from a fake paper published by physicist Alan Sokal of New York University in the journal Social Text in 1996, to a sting operation by US reporter John Bohannon published in Science in 2013, in which he got more than 150 open-access journals to accept a deliberately flawed study for publication.

Labbé emphasizes that the nonsense computer science papers all appeared in subscription offerings. In his view, there is little evidence that open-access publishers — which charge fees to publish manuscripts — necessarily have less stringent peer review than subscription publishers.

Labbé adds that the nonsense papers were easy to detect using his tools, much like the plagiarism checkers that many publishers already employ. But because he could not automatically download all papers from the subscription databases, he cannot be sure that he has spotted every SCIgen-generated paper.
Coupled with on-going problems with reproducibility and it's a really fascinating insight into the world of academic science.



To be the one who gave Alan Sokal the news...
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9281
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Guardsman Bass »

Straha wrote:Most of the conferences took place in China, and most of the fake papers have authors with Chinese affiliations. Labbé has emailed editors and authors named in many of the papers and related conferences but received scant replies; one editor said that he did not work as a program chair at a particular conference, even though he was named as doing so, and another author claimed his paper was submitted on purpose to test out a conference, but did not respond on follow-up. Nature has not heard anything from a few enquiries.
That should have been a tip-off right there to the editors at IEEE. There are tons of fraudulent papers churning out of China because the incentives there are for academics to publish in volume first and foremost, and particularly to get it into prestigious journals. So you get fraudulent papers, fraudulently named co-authors, fraudulent conferences, and even some fraudulent journals which publish stuff for money.
Straha wrote: Coupled with on-going problems with reproducibility and it's a really fascinating insight into the world of academic science.



To be the one who gave Alan Sokal the news...
Sokal's a physicist, which isn't where the problems with reproducibility are popping up. They're mostly popping up in the medical and psychology fields, where you frequently have issues with small effects, not adequately designed experiments, and the "first to discover" bias.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Straha »

Guardsman Bass wrote: Sokal's a physicist, which isn't where the problems with reproducibility are popping up. They're mostly popping up in the medical and psychology fields, where you frequently have issues with small effects, not adequately designed experiments, and the "first to discover" bias.
The Sokal dig isn't so much about the reproducibility question but rather his overt touting of scientific rigor and peer review in the aftermath of his famous 'hoax'. Along with all his other inanities he used this (along with reproducibility) to make the claim that the humanities, and modern philosophy in particular, were intellectually bankrupt in comparison to the hard sciences. Along with putting the shoe on the other foot it helps to show the fundamental vacuity of his argument, namely that a few instances of fraud or misrepresentation don't discredit an entire field of study.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Thanas »

This reminds me of anecdotes just how much plagiarism is accepted in China, up to the point where an entire class of students turned in assignments to a law professor that were 1 to 1 copies of wikipedia.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Spoonist
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2405
Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Spoonist »

Thanas wrote:This reminds me of anecdotes just how much plagiarism is accepted in China, up to the point where an entire class of students turned in assignments to a law professor that were 1 to 1 copies of wikipedia.
I have plenty of chinese colleagues. Their academic stories are telling.
One had a programming class where all the assignments where how to wrap existing software in chinese UI. (Not licensed properly of course).
One was an assistant editor for a science mag associated with his uni, when I asked for the reject rate of articles, he said there were only rewrites, never a reject.
One had a class talking about how many laps through google translate you had to go before it was no longer plagiarism. It was the principle/head master holding the class.
One had gone through a high tech programmers with some masters degree, he didn't know how to write software from scratch. You always start with someone else's code.
Our local uni, with paid tuition, had to stop throwing out chinese students for cheating because the class would drop below the minimum requirement. Instead they had to go through a warning system based on contacting the embassy - where sometimes they would simply substitute in a new student.

Its crazy, but its their system who makes them such, after de-indoctrination for a few years in the company we get a lot of really ambitious and driven people.
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

The Sokal dig isn't so much about the reproducibility question but rather his overt touting of scientific rigor and peer review in the aftermath of his famous 'hoax'. Along with all his other inanities he used this (along with reproducibility) to make the claim that the humanities, and modern philosophy in particular, were intellectually bankrupt in comparison to the hard sciences. Along with putting the shoe on the other foot it helps to show the fundamental vacuity of his argument, namely that a few instances of fraud or misrepresentation don't discredit an entire field of study.
Yes, because outright fraud, and a field of study that is completely meaningless are comparable. :wanker:

Here is a general rule that I think broadly applies. If you postulate that physics is a social construct, you need to have your head examined. In fact, if your ideas about how the universe works can be found in a game of Mage: The Ascension, you need to have your head examined. Social Text had no worthwhile academic peer review. There was no review from a physicist, even. This would be like me sending off computer generated Bullshit to Ecology, and having it be published.

Fraudulent papers are another matter. There is only so much someone can do in order to prevent fraud (note, Sokal's paper was not Fraud, as there was no intent to deceive, but expose a lack of rigor and bad editorial practice. His methods have been adopted in the sciences to expose bad journals within our own fields of study. More on that momentarily). There are enough submissions that emailing every co-author is not possible. Labs and voucher specimens cannot be checked for every submission etc etc. Ultimately, there must be a degree of trust in that someone does what they say they did, and while data can and should be submitted any dedicated fraudster will fabricate that too.

As for bad journals, there was recently a rather large effort undertaken to expose bad/fraudulently extant Open Access journals. Submissions were generated that had flaws in experiment design easily spotted if even cursory review was performed. This yielded... horrific if not shocking results. There are a few Open Access journals (those connected to large societies and PLoS) that are held to the same standard as other journals. A great many (often with titles or affiliations that are effectively trademark infringement) were either fraudulent entirely, or did not engage in peer review. There is a list, posted up by IIRC AAAS that identifies these "journals".

As for the computer generated ones... Oy. Lots of conference proceedings, which does not shock me. Conference proceedings are just the abstracts. They are submitted, essentially, to get them into the conference program so people know what talks they want to attend, and many are works in progress when submitted. It is possible that a reviewer just skims them. The journals are... more mystifying. I would need to see what SCIgen is capable of producing.
Sokal's a physicist, which isn't where the problems with reproducibility are popping up. They're mostly popping up in the medical and psychology fields, where you frequently have issues with small effects, not adequately designed experiments, and the "first to discover" bias.
Unfortunately, that is largely unavoidable. Ethics committees are a bitch that way. There are things one cannot do in order to obtain results. Even the experimental use of deception is very difficult to justify. Sample size is limited both by funding, demands of ethics committees, and a shortage of volunteers.

This is not a bad thing... well... it is, but the alternative is worse.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Straha »

Alyrium Denryle wrote: Yes, because outright fraud, and a field of study that is completely meaningless are comparable. :wanker:
Oh? Modern philosophy is completely meaningless? Do tell...
If you postulate that physics is a social construct, you need to have your head examined.
Can you offer any reasons why physics and the scientific method aren't social constructs?
Social Text had no worthwhile academic peer review. There was no review from a physicist, even. This would be like me sending off computer generated Bullshit to Ecology, and having it be published.
A couple of basic things:
1. Social Text had no 'peer reivew' policy. Unlike most journals in the field Social Text deliberately sought to publish papers from widely divergent fields to try and trigger dialog and exchange between people who wouldn't normally publish in journals even remotely similar to each other. While they had editorial oversight and rejected papers, it deliberately and openly wasn't peer reviewed and never claimed it was.
2. They actually told Sokal his paper was non-sensical in large sections and asked for serious revisions to clean it up. Sokal refused. When he did they decided that someone who was as accredited as he was, and who was dedicated to the field of academic exchange, wouldn't try to submit a nonsensical paper. Turns out they were wrong to give him the benefit of the doubt. Who knew scientists could be self-centered assholes?
Fraudulent papers are another matter. There is only so much someone can do in order to prevent fraud (note, Sokal's paper was not Fraud, as there was no intent to deceive, but expose a lack of rigor and bad editorial practice. His methods have been adopted in the sciences to expose bad journals within our own fields of study. More on that momentarily). There are enough submissions that emailing every co-author is not possible. Labs and voucher specimens cannot be checked for every submission etc etc. Ultimately, there must be a degree of trust in that someone does what they say they did, and while data can and should be submitted any dedicated fraudster will fabricate that too.
Your claim re: Sokal seems to be that because his intent was fraudulent the paper therefore wasn't fraudulent. Which seems... odd. I don't know, I think if someone submits a paper to a journal that good faith should be expected, and if your intent is to mock the journal for puerile and myopic self-benefit than I think that you have, at the very least, been academically dishonest and probably fraudulently used your credentials. That's not something that deserves a pass, even in a world where Sokal actually had a point to make.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Simon_Jester »

Straha wrote:
If you postulate that physics is a social construct, you need to have your head examined.
Can you offer any reasons why physics and the scientific method aren't social constructs?
Personally, I think the scientific method as such is a social construct in that we definitely invented it. There are ways to approach the world that do not involve the scientific method at all. All the ones I'm familiar with involve sitting around in Iron Age stagnation with no electricity and no antiseptic childbirth, but they exist.

On the other hand, why is physics not a social construct?

[Points to electric generator] If we'd made up Maxwell's Laws, if they were in some way a consensus fabrication we'd agreed upon that had no necessary relationship to outside reality... would that generator work?

I mean, maybe I'm misunderstanding what "construct" means in this context. If I trip over a rock and fall on my face, have I in any meaningful sense 'constructed' the idea of a rock? Is a tree a social construct? The sky? Hunger? Thirst?

Actually, the question I want answered most, if you don't mind... I shall borrow a trick from Feynman. One he invented in the 1930s, for keeping physicists from getting fatally confused in discussions with philosophers. I shall ask simply:

Is a brick a social construct?

Can you maybe explain this to me, before I get off on a tangent and start rambling on the basis of not actually knowing what social construct means to you?
Social Text had no worthwhile academic peer review. There was no review from a physicist, even. This would be like me sending off computer generated Bullshit to Ecology, and having it be published.
A couple of basic things:
1. Social Text had no 'peer reivew' policy. Unlike most journals in the field Social Text deliberately sought to publish papers from widely divergent fields to try and trigger dialog and exchange between people who wouldn't normally publish in journals even remotely similar to each other. While they had editorial oversight and rejected papers, it deliberately and openly wasn't peer reviewed and never claimed it was.
This does suggest a problem with the practice though. While Sokal being an asshole may have been the proximate cause of this gibberish paper being printed, it would seem fairly easy for random quacks to insert papers into Social Text this way. As long as they seem reasonable and can write coherent English... who's going to gainsay them if they make a false assertion about their own field?

One of the reasons why so many journals have (or claim to have) a meaningful review process is to stop pretentious gibberish from driving out serious debate. If it's a design feature of this journal that its review process doesn't even try to correct false assertions about the field it discusses, then that's a problem in its own right.

And while Sokal himself may have behaved badly, I approve of the idea of at least trying to get bad papers through a review process as a way of testing that review process and its ability to strain out gibberish or nonsense. I honestly can't think of any other way to do it.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
JLTucker
BANNED
Posts: 3043
Joined: 2006-02-26 01:58am

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by JLTucker »

Straha wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote: Yes, because outright fraud, and a field of study that is completely meaningless are comparable. :wanker:
Oh? Modern philosophy is completely meaningless? Do tell...
Of course. Anything unrelated to the hard sciences is meaningless. People who delve into philosophy to help shape their world views are fucking idiots.
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Oh? Modern philosophy is completely meaningless? Do tell...
Yes. Lets say I have two propositions regarding metaphysics. The existence or non-existence of a separate realm of ordered information. Read: a modern redefinition of platonism or non-platonism.

Can I tell which one is true? No. No I cannot. Ergo, the argument is intellectual masturbation. No set of metaphysics can be distinguished from that which is put forth by modern Naturalist philosophers, which has the benefit of being directly applicable to methodologies we know work. In other words, applying platonism does not help you build a computer. Applying Naturalism does. If Platonism is true, its effect on the world is not evident as separate from Naturalism. Ergo, it does not matter. Ergo functionally meaningless.

Or I could use another example. Lets say i put forth the proposition that I am the only being who actually exists as some sort of disembodied hallucinating consciousness, with the rest of you being illusions. I cannot tell whether or not that proposition is true, but I must exist as if it is not true. This is because if, for example, I go about treating the world as if I am in a game of GTA, one of my hallucinations might take exception and fill my hallucinatory body with hallucinatory potassium chloride and someone the consciousness responsible for the hallucination. Thus, even if true, the Descartesian hypothesis is a meaningless one.

Ethics is at least practical, but ultimately is an empirical exercise with the primary test of any set of propositions being constructed hypothetical ethical scenarios that do little but see how well a given ethical proposition matches up with whatever inborn or culturally acquired ethical intuitions we already possess.

In other words: Ethics, as a discipline, tries to be prescriptive, but it is and never has been anything but descriptive. An exercise that is performed better by neuroscience and cognitive psychology (especially because Ethics assumes things like Completeness, which when you consider the empirical reality that our brains have separate brain regions that handle Consequentialist and Deontological ethical reasoning and weighs both imperatives like mass on a cantilever, is silly). It is useful only insofar as it is good at systematizing empirically derived ethical premises, and setting down rules of thumb for application. Utilitarianism is to ethics what the Reciprocal Rule is for calculus. It is neither complete, nor is it applicable every time I want to take a derivative.
Can you offer any reasons why physics and the scientific method aren't social constructs?
The scientific method is a social construct, but it is a social construct that obtains real information about a real world. If the knowledge gained did not contain accurate information about the real world and was merely a product of social forces, we would not be having this conversation because your computer would not function.

Unless you are going to postulate that the rules of the universe are a social consensus. In which case I would ask that you leave both the mushrooms and the Mage: The Ascension books in your desk drawer.

Alternatively, we may well mean different things by Social Construct. So I would ask you to define precisely what you mean so as to avoid strawmen and equivocation fallacies. It would not do to have accidents.
A couple of basic things:
1. Social Text had no 'peer reivew' policy. Unlike most journals in the field Social Text deliberately sought to publish papers from widely divergent fields to try and trigger dialog and exchange between people who wouldn't normally publish in journals even remotely similar to each other. While they had editorial oversight and rejected papers, it deliberately and openly wasn't peer reviewed and never claimed it was.
That is not a feature. It is a bug. Having an journal that accepts a huge array of subject material is a good thing, but for fuck's sake, basic fact checking.

If I were an editor and a paper landed on my desk discussing material I had little or no knowledge of, I would ask a person who has such knowledge to make sure what is being discussed is not complete BS, even if I did not have a formal peer review procedure. The editor of Social Text did no such thing. In fact...
2. They actually told Sokal his paper was non-sensical in large sections and asked for serious revisions to clean it up. Sokal refused. When he did they decided that someone who was as accredited as he was, and who was dedicated to the field of academic exchange, wouldn't try to submit a nonsensical paper. Turns out they were wrong to give him the benefit of the doubt. Who knew scientists could be self-centered assholes?
And they published it anyway.. When I was in HS, I edited a student literary magazine. Poetry, academic prose, fiction etc. Everything. If a submitted essay was complete gibberish, I would not publish it. The prospective Valedictorian (who was one of my best friends and who was, and continues to be an individual of high intellectual badass quotient) could have submitted the item in question, and it would have been tossed in the Reject pile, because we had limited space and a lot of submissions. Congratulations, publishing standards in Social Text do not rise to the level of a high school literary publication.

More to the point, he was not being a self-centered asshole. His hypothesis was that they would publish complete nonsense. He wrote complete nonsense. He submitted complete nonsense. The editors noticed parts of it were complete nonsense. They asked him to make changes. He refused.

If they had academic rigor in their editorial policy, they would have put it in the reject pile like every other journal, and Sokal would have been wrong. They do not, and put it in the publish pile. Ergo, Sokal was right.
Your claim re: Sokal seems to be that because his intent was fraudulent the paper therefore wasn't fraudulent.
A sting operation, be it by law enforcement or an academic, is not fraud. Definitionally.
Which seems... odd. I don't know, I think if someone submits a paper to a journal that good faith should be expected, and if your intent is to mock the journal for puerile and myopic self-benefit than I think that you have, at the very least, been academically dishonest and probably fraudulently used your credentials.
Journals have to have rigorous publishing standards. Especially in cross-discipline publications where many of the readers are not experts on the subject of any given paper, and cannot readily evaluate its propositions. There must be a degree of trust that propositions made (say, observations about an obscure theory within physics) are accurate and applied correctly.

There is only one way to know if that rigor exists, and that is to test it. It might be embarrassing, but ultimately it is in a journal's benefit that someone does that testing periodically.
That's not something that deserves a pass, even in a world where Sokal actually had a point to make.
This is something I find to be hilarious. When we (scientists) submit bullshit computer generated papers to journals in a massive sting operation, the reputable journals and their respective associations and publishers respond with "oh. shit. Our quality control has slipped. We will retract the papers, modify our policies, and make sure our reviewers/editors are not stoned while they read submissions. We fucked up. We are sorry."

When the same thing happens in the humanities, the response is apparently "Waaaah! Why are you being so mean to us, you childish oppressor of the humanities?! Arrogant Scientism, a pox be upon it!"
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Thanas »

JLTucker wrote:Of course. Anything unrelated to the hard sciences is meaningless. People who delve into philosophy to help shape their world views are fucking idiots.
I heard you like TV....

Alyrium Denryle wrote:This is something I find to be hilarious. When we (scientists) submit bullshit computer generated papers to journals in a massive sting operation, the reputable journals and their respective associations and publishers respond with "oh. shit. Our quality control has slipped. We will retract the papers, modify our policies, and make sure our reviewers/editors are not stoned while they read submissions. We fucked up. We are sorry."

When the same thing happens in the humanities, the response is apparently "Waaaah! Why are you being so mean to us, you childish oppressor of the humanities?! Arrogant Scientism, a pox be upon it!"
I love how it is "the humanities" and "we scientists" as if the two are mutually exclusive and also giant singular entities. Generalizations are fun.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
JLTucker
BANNED
Posts: 3043
Joined: 2006-02-26 01:58am

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by JLTucker »

Thanas wrote:
JLTucker wrote:Of course. Anything unrelated to the hard sciences is meaningless. People who delve into philosophy to help shape their world views are fucking idiots.
I heard you like TV.....
Sarcasm hasn't been working for me lately. No one is picking it up. The views I mocked used to be common here. It has been a while since I've read a post where an entire field of study was rendered useless because it isn't related to the hard sciences. To be honest, I find such people more and more unimpressive due to their inflated self-importance. Philosophy has and always will be important. As will the arts. As will science, maths, etc. You can't take a mathematical proofs class without some discussion, even minor, on logic and various philosophers who pioneered the subject\.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Thanas »

Yeah, my apologies. I missed on the sarcasm.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Simon_Jester »

JLTucker wrote:
Straha wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote: Yes, because outright fraud, and a field of study that is completely meaningless are comparable. :wanker:
Oh? Modern philosophy is completely meaningless? Do tell...
Of course. Anything unrelated to the hard sciences is meaningless. People who delve into philosophy to help shape their world views are fucking idiots.
I think the root of Alyrium's complaint is that modern philosophy has become increasingly irrelevant because it has already defined the philosophical constructs we need to properly understand our world, and proceeded to wander off into the fog where it finds nothing of value.

If your 'philosophers' are sitting around playing word games, then they have ceased to do anything worthwhile. If all a hypothetical philosopher has to say is "what does the fact that Einstein came up with relativity say about the patriarchy?" then again, they have basically ceased to do anything worthwhile. This is not to say some other conversation about the patriarchy, or something else, couldn't be worth the trouble... but they're still a brainless git if that's the thing they want to say about Einstein. It sort of reminds me of this XKCD:

http://xkcd.com/1239/

Philosophy, like social media, is not intrinsically pointless, but it can be made pointless through unintelligent use of one's time. Especially if one is still getting paid whether one's results have a point or not.
Thanas wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:This is something I find to be hilarious. When we (scientists) submit bullshit computer generated papers to journals in a massive sting operation, the reputable journals and their respective associations and publishers respond with "oh. shit. Our quality control has slipped. We will retract the papers, modify our policies, and make sure our reviewers/editors are not stoned while they read submissions. We fucked up. We are sorry."

When the same thing happens in the humanities, the response is apparently "Waaaah! Why are you being so mean to us, you childish oppressor of the humanities?! Arrogant Scientism, a pox be upon it!"
I love how it is "the humanities" and "we scientists" as if the two are mutually exclusive and also giant singular entities. Generalizations are fun.
In this case, there appears to be a divide between the two categories.

Sure, there are scientists who participate in the humanities, and people in the humanities who rely heavily on scientific knowledge, and all sorts of cross-pollination.

But if gibberish masquerading as science is slipping harmlessly past the radar of humanities journals, and the scientists call the humanities journal out on it... how can the answer possibly be to say "this represents you arrogant bastards having a superiority complex about science?" Or "you're trying to set the sciences apart from the humanities!"

Me, I think that if anything we should be trying to bridge the gap- but it's going to require that everyone raise their standards and accept that we should at least try to avoid cluttering our academic world with nonsense.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Thanas »

Simon_Jester wrote:In this case, there appears to be a divide between the two categories.

Sure, there are scientists who participate in the humanities, and people in the humanities who rely heavily on scientific knowledge, and all sorts of cross-pollination.

But if gibberish masquerading as science is slipping harmlessly past the radar of humanities journals, and the scientists call the humanities journal out on it... how can the answer possibly be to say "this represents you arrogant bastards having a superiority complex about science?" Or "you're trying to set the sciences apart from the humanities!"

Me, I think that if anything we should be trying to bridge the gap- but it's going to require that everyone raise their standards and accept that we should at least try to avoid cluttering our academic world with nonsense.
Alyrium is of the opinion that anything less than hard science is pointless. Which is not only a very arrogant, but also a very misinformed point of view. That is my first objection.

The second is that he is using instances of people getting away with fraud as proof of whole fields being superior to one another which is just ludicrous. It would be like me saying humanities are superior because getting a doctorate in humanities usually involves writing more and working longer than those in the natural sciences. Nobody would accept that prima facie so why does an equally idiotic claim deserve credit?

Third, coverups of past misdeeds is something totally singular only to the humanities and nobody in the field of the natural sciences never covered anything up, committed fraud, falsified research or lied to get a grant. Nope, all angels. (In case you missed it and got no knowledge of the hideous role played by natural scientists in colonialism and genocide, that was sarcasm). Yet you don't see biology getting branded as suspicious per se, but somehow when it happens in a few humanities journals the whole disciplines get attacked.

Fourth, I have never heard of a reputable humanities journal (with most of them having a longer and far richer history than scientific journals, I might add) responding to published fraud with saying "arrogant bastards". Notice the publishers in the OP? One of them is Springer (better known as Springer Science and Business) which also publishes humanities. In fact, they are one of the leading publishers of social sciences as well. I fail to see why they would treat fraud in social texts as any different than fraud in natural science texts.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Simon_Jester »

Thanas wrote:Alyrium is of the opinion that anything less than hard science is pointless. Which is not only a very arrogant, but also a very misinformed point of view. That is my first objection.
I think it might be worth asking him for clarification on that, not least because you and he might disagree about what constitutes "anything less than hard science." I think you're exaggerating.
The second is that he is using instances of people getting away with fraud as proof of whole fields being superior to one another which is just ludicrous. It would be like me saying humanities are superior because getting a doctorate in humanities usually involves writing more and working longer than those in the natural sciences. Nobody would accept that prima facie so why does an equally idiotic claim deserve credit?
Actually, he seems to be saying no such thing.

His only sentence that can be interpreted directly as a comparison of science and the humanities in the first post of contention is the one where he says "outright fraud, and a field of study that is completely meaningless are comparable." I'm not quite clear on what he meant by that, but his expansion on the question sheds some light on it.

In the next post that might be of contention, he details which field of study is meaningless to him, and it's not "all the humanities." It's philosophy. He explains why he calls philosophy meaningless... but his reasons seem largely restricted to philosophy. They don't extend to other disciplines within the humanities, or at least it doesn't seem logical to think they do and he said no such thing.

He does go on to criticize Social Text in particular for having a terrible review process such that they can be railroaded into publishing gibberish if it comes from someone with an impressive degree. But it's not like he defends journals in other fields that do the same thing. His criticism seems aimed mostly at journals with terrible review processes, and we can all agree that's a bad thing if we want academic rigor.
Third, coverups of past misdeeds is something totally singular only to the humanities and nobody in the field of the natural sciences never covered anything up, committed fraud, falsified research or lied to get a grant. Nope, all angels. (In case you missed it and got no knowledge of the hideous role played by natural scientists in colonialism and genocide, that was sarcasm). Yet you don't see biology getting branded as suspicious per se, but somehow when it happens in a few humanities journals the whole disciplines get attacked.
Fourth, I have never heard of a reputable humanities journal (with most of them having a longer and far richer history than scientific journals, I might add) responding to published fraud with saying "arrogant bastards". Notice the publishers in the OP? One of them is Springer (better known as Springer Science and Business) which also publishes humanities. In fact, they are one of the leading publishers of social sciences as well. I fail to see why they would treat fraud in social texts as any different than fraud in natural science texts.
He said "the response is." He did not say "the response of the journal publishers is." He seems to be specifically pointing at people who try to defend the journals by arguing that the scientists have a bad attitude here, when from the scientists' point of view they are simply trying to test whether or not the journals have adequate gibberish-proofing.

Of course, Alyrium might surprise me, but I think that until he does we should at least extend him the courtesy of responding to what he actually said, not putting words in his mouth because we WANT him to be the "hard science uber alles" bastard we can tear into for being contemptuous of history/literature/et cetera.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Thanas »

How else is the following exchange to be understood except that he agrees with Sokol?
Straha wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote: Sokal's a physicist, which isn't where the problems with reproducibility are popping up. They're mostly popping up in the medical and psychology fields, where you frequently have issues with small effects, not adequately designed experiments, and the "first to discover" bias.
The Sokal dig isn't so much about the reproducibility question but rather his overt touting of scientific rigor and peer review in the aftermath of his famous 'hoax'. Along with all his other inanities he used this (along with reproducibility) to make the claim that the humanities, and modern philosophy in particular, were intellectually bankrupt in comparison to the hard sciences. Along with putting the shoe on the other foot it helps to show the fundamental vacuity of his argument, namely that a few instances of fraud or misrepresentation don't discredit an entire field of study.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Yes, because outright fraud, and a field of study that is completely meaningless are comparable. :wanker:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:This is something I find to be hilarious. When we (scientists) submit bullshit computer generated papers to journals in a massive sting operation, the reputable journals and their respective associations and publishers respond with "oh. shit. Our quality control has slipped. We will retract the papers, modify our policies, and make sure our reviewers/editors are not stoned while they read submissions. We fucked up. We are sorry."

When the same thing happens in the humanities, the response is apparently "Waaaah! Why are you being so mean to us, you childish oppressor of the humanities?! Arrogant Scientism, a pox be upon it!"
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Simon_Jester »

"A field of study" would appear to refer specifically to philosophy (which is why he talks about philosophy and only philosophy at great length in his next post). Not to refer to all the humanities. If you wish to specifically get indignant on behalf of his attack on modern philosophy professors fine, but you should know you're defending a small target, not a big one. Straha seemed to have been aware of that.

Now, I look at the second paragraph of the third quote from you and wonder "is he representing the opinions of humanities journals, or of individuals who are trying to defend those journals?" I think he's trying to represent the opinions of people who are trying to defend the journals. I suppose I could be wrong about that, but I think it's a valid interpretation.

I don't particularly know or care whether or not that constitutes Alyrium agreeing with Sokol. I restrict my statement to "Alyrium appears to be dismissing modern philosophy, and the specific journals whose review process is so bad they can't screen out pure gibberish if the author's opinionated enough to keep resubmitting it."
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Thanas »

Fair enough.

But philosophy is important for a number of humanities as it helps to develop models. See for example Foucault. To dismiss it out of hand just seems way too overreaching too me.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Simon_Jester »

I would certainly not agree with Alyrium that philosophy is inherently useless (which he seems to be saying). On the other hand, there is a great deal of useless or near-useless philosophy out there. Especially when it escalates until the philosophers are calling into question basic propositions we use for practical purposes in everyday life, the equivalent of saying that knives are not 'really' sharp or some such.

The cumulative effect tends to run down the philosophers' collective moral authority with more practical members of the intelligentsia.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Straha »

Simon_Jester wrote: On the other hand, why is physics not a social construct?

[Points to electric generator] If we'd made up Maxwell's Laws, if they were in some way a consensus fabrication we'd agreed upon that had no necessary relationship to outside reality... would that generator work?
A distinction needs to be made here. There is a fundamental difference between the question of a material-extant universe that follows some sort of rule system and the potential of human understanding of said rules. I am not discounting the possibility, or even the strong probability, that the former exists in some way, shape, or form. The question is rather the latter, and there is no possibility of that not being ‘socially constructed’. What gets determined as scientific, what gets coded as different branches of science, how we ask the questions we study, and everything else that goes with are contingent on fluid ideas that exist separate from any of the questions being investigated and determine how those questions and the results are coded and read. (This is maybe the best way to understand the quick and dirty meaning of social construction. It’s a rejection of the idea that concepts like ‘science’ can exist ‘qua science’ and the recognition that it depends, fundamentally, on external largely cultural concepts that precede them and that these concepts, themselves contingent on other concepts, are always in flux.)


Rather than repeat a lot of other things that I’ve written about in the past here, I’ll point you back to this post which lays out a lot of the main thrusts of my criticisms of an empirical understanding of science.

I will add two things here:
First, is that I’m not anti-science. Science is fucking rad, and regardless of my anti-enlightenment stances I’m leery to say the least of any blanket rejection of science. But we have to understand science as an epistemological tool in the toolbox of our existence. It has its uses, and can be truly productive, but it also has limits, and profoundly troubling ones at that. The problem arises when we stop viewing science as a tool and start viewing it as the tool whose existence justifies its own use no matter the situation. That’s where things like vivisection and Tuskegee start coming to the fore.
Second, I get where you are coming from with the pragmatic defense of science as giving us results. Yes, science gives results, but that’s not a defense of the epistemological underpinnings of science. We have to understand how and why science gives us results, and the foundations behind it that control we understand those results. If we don’t we’re no different than well-timed cargo cultists. ‘If I wave the sticks the right way and at the right time, stuff falls from the sky.’ True, but ultimately tragically flawed .

Is a brick a social construct?

Can you maybe explain this to me, before I get off on a tangent and start rambling on the basis of not actually knowing what social construct means to you?
I think I answer this mostly above, but you’re asking two different questions. Does matter exist in a shape in the wall next to me? Probably. Is my understanding of that matter, of the distinctiveness of that item, of how I understand it dependent on concepts external to the brick? Yes. Does that include my understanding of the first question? Yes.
To make crystal clear, I’m not rejecting the study of the brick, per se. I’m saying there are limits on any possible study of the brick and that those limits are worth investigating and exploring in-depth in their own right.
Social Text had no worthwhile academic peer review. There was no review from a physicist, even. This would be like me sending off computer generated Bullshit to Ecology, and having it be published.
A couple of basic things:
1. Social Text had no 'peer reivew' policy. Unlike most journals in the field Social Text deliberately sought to publish papers from widely divergent fields to try and trigger dialog and exchange between people who wouldn't normally publish in journals even remotely similar to each other. While they had editorial oversight and rejected papers, it deliberately and openly wasn't peer reviewed and never claimed it was.
This does suggest a problem with the practice though. While Sokal being an asshole may have been the proximate cause of this gibberish paper being printed, it would seem fairly easy for random quacks to insert papers into Social Text this way. As long as they seem reasonable and can write coherent English... who's going to gainsay them if they make a false assertion about their own field?

One of the reasons why so many journals have (or claim to have) a meaningful review process is to stop pretentious gibberish from driving out serious debate. If it's a design feature of this journal that its review process doesn't even try to correct false assertions about the field it discusses, then that's a problem in its own right.

And while Sokal himself may have behaved badly, I approve of the idea of at least trying to get bad papers through a review process as a way of testing that review process and its ability to strain out gibberish or nonsense. I honestly can't think of any other way to do it.
I’m not disagreeing with you. My grudge with Sokal is not based on a defense of Social Text’s quixotic hopes for open dialog (no matter how sympathetic to them I may be), but that he conflates two different questions:
1. Is the Social Text experiment worthwhile in producing academic conversation?
And
2. Does Critical Theory/Modern Philosophy/Cultural Studies have anything worthwhile to say?

If, after he got his paper published, he went to Lingua Franca and made the claim that Social Text’s editorial policies were conducive to getting gibberish published and that maybe the editors should either rethink their open door policy or stick to their guns when dealing with recalcitrant authors (like him) instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt this would be a non-issue. He would have offered more proof to an obvious point that everyone already understood and had debated, there would be a few people with hurt feelings, and nobody would give a shit almost two decades later. Instead he conflated the former, the utility of a journal, with the latter, an entire of study and discourse, and created a modern-day Piltdown man. A trope people use in their ignorance to justify their continued ignorance of an entire field of study and to reject it out of hand. That ain’t cool.

It’s also my snark from the OP. Widespread fraud in scientific journals is interesting and important to know, but it doesn’t discredit the entire field of science. Sokal’s logic, however, would beg to differ.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Straha »

Simon_Jester wrote:I would certainly not agree with Alyrium that philosophy is inherently useless (which he seems to be saying). On the other hand, there is a great deal of useless or near-useless philosophy out there. Especially when it escalates until the philosophers are calling into question basic propositions we use for practical purposes in everyday life, the equivalent of saying that knives are not 'really' sharp or some such.

The cumulative effect tends to run down the philosophers' collective moral authority with more practical members of the intelligentsia.

I'm curious, which philosophy would you classify as useless or near-useless? Can you point to authors/books/texts? And what are the valid intrinsic 'uses' of philosophy?
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Simon_Jester accurately summarized, I suspect because he is more familiar with me than you are
Herr Jester wrote:I think the root of Alyrium's complaint is that modern philosophy has become increasingly irrelevant because it has already defined the philosophical constructs we need to properly understand our world, and proceeded to wander off into the fog where it finds nothing of value.
Not bad, as far as short summaries are concerned.
The second is that he is using instances of people getting away with fraud as proof of whole fields being superior to one another which is just ludicrous. It would be like me saying humanities are superior because getting a doctorate in humanities usually involves writing more and working longer than those in the natural sciences. Nobody would accept that prima facie so why does an equally idiotic claim deserve credit?
Not only would no one accept that prima facie, I would question the truth value of the claim that someone getting a doctorate in the humanities is more work.

Also, your summary of my position is not correct. I am using an instance of an academic sting operation (not fraud. This has since become standard practice in the sciences to test quality control standards, and no one complains) to bolster the claim that some fields of study tolerate lack of rigor. Social Text is not, as far as I am aware, considered a shit journal within its broad category. That it did not engage in peer review and as of 2009 still does not, indicates that the lack of rigor is still tolerated.

I cannot publish a non-peer-reviewed paper and have it be counted on my CV as anything better than a letter to the editor to the local newspaper. Social Text does, in fact, count as a legitimate publication.

I am also not referring to the whole of the humanities (albeit I do verbally on occasion, something I will clarify here in a moment) however, as I am sure you will understand, I have precisely zero regard for some of its sub-branches. Some of modern philosophy (particularly pertaining to metaphysics, and I include here the physicists who have jumped on a solipsism train and who are not actually doing physics), most manifestations of postmodernism, individually-relativistic ethics (because then, what precisely is the point?) etc.

If someone wants to pour over the collected works of Dickens and examine the literary themes therein, I have no issue with that. Literature has a place at the table when it comes to understanding what it means to be human. History, same thing and if someone wants to write a thesis on the social and economic impacts of the Marian reforms, more power to them. I would actually read that. If someone wants to examine the symbols present in medieval art, fine. No objection.

You will notice how those things are not complete and utter gibberish where the practitioners reject the very notion of some sort of truth-value to their claims, and where arguments have actual evidence presented. However, once someone starts rejecting the realness of the universe, or rejects the concept of urban planning and street grids because they object to homogenous city environments (and also road safety and ease of navigation) or reasons that amount to intellectual masturbation, we have a problem.

Also, I have no problem with psychology and most lines of scholarship within anthropology. Sociology... really really mixed bag there. Economics? Behavioral Economics actually has testable hypotheses that do not rely on tautological assumptions.
Third, coverups of past misdeeds is something totally singular only to the humanities and nobody in the field of the natural sciences never covered anything up, committed fraud, falsified research or lied to get a grant. Nope, all angels. (In case you missed it and got no knowledge of the hideous role played by natural scientists in colonialism and genocide, that was sarcasm). Yet you don't see biology getting branded as suspicious per se, but somehow when it happens in a few humanities journals the whole disciplines get attacked.
That is why we now have ethics committees, sting operations with fake papers, voucher specimens, peer review, conflict of interest disclosures and numerous other mechanisms to root out such malfeasance.
Fourth, I have never heard of a reputable humanities journal (with most of them having a longer and far richer history than scientific journals, I might add) responding to published fraud with saying "arrogant bastards". Notice the publishers in the OP? One of them is Springer (better known as Springer Science and Business) which also publishes humanities. In fact, they are one of the leading publishers of social sciences as well. I fail to see why they would treat fraud in social texts as any different than fraud in natural science texts.
They dont. Social Texts did. I realize you do not have much in the way of a sarcasm or contempt detector. But this:
When the same thing happens in the humanities, the response is apparently "Waaaah! Why are you being so mean to us, you childish oppressor of the humanities?! Arrogant Scientism, a pox be upon it!"
Was me treating Straha with the contempt he deserves.

But lets compare and contrast. When, in the sciences, someone pulls a sting operation of this sort, the collective response from publishers is to change editorial policies etc. The community response is to laugh at the misfortune, and strike them off the list of journals we want to publish in until such time as those policies are changed. Lists are maintained.

With Sokal's little sting, you get people like Straha, who bitch about the unfairness of the method and castigating arrogant scientism, rather than address the point. Namely, that a particular journal has a shitty editorial policy, and decided to publish over their own objections on the strength of an author's good name, in a special issue no less. The editors themselves did not take the criticism, they instead called him half-educated etc. Some individuals suggested that he needed psychiatric treatment. When the reality is, the editors failed to spot a parody of their own area of study, and then bitched about it, rather than take responsibility for the fact that they let unintelligible bullshit into their publication. One of the journals own former editors responded to the then-current editor's bullshit with "you need a reality check".

As for Springer, they dont have a unified set of editors. Springer has some of its own journals, but also has agreements with various professional organizations to do the actual printing and archiving for them. However the editorial staff and peer reviewers are selected internally. There is... variation in the quality of the peer review, depending on the journal, how tired the editor is, chosen reviewers etc. It happens. Spam enough submissions and something gets through.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Lagmonster
Master Control Program
Master Control Program
Posts: 7719
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:53am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Lagmonster »

Jacques Derrida himself noted that Sokal's broadside had basically ruined the chance for postmodernist views to be taken seriously in public discourse, substituting spectacle and mockery for worthwhile discussion. He was right. Things have changed slightly since as scientists have moved on from the so-called 'science wars', but I find that postmodernism is still popularly synonymous with anti-scientific, mouthy gibberish.
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Re: Widespread Fraud in Scientific Academic Publishing

Post by Straha »

Lagmonster wrote:Jacques Derrida himself noted that Sokal's broadside had basically ruined the chance for postmodernist views to be taken seriously in public discourse, substituting spectacle and mockery for worthwhile discussion. He was right. Things have changed slightly since as scientists have moved on from the so-called 'science wars', but I find that postmodernism is still popularly synonymous with anti-scientific, mouthy gibberish.
Re: Derrida, that's overstating what he had to say:
Jacques wrote: These debates have a complex history: libraries full of epistemological works! Before setting up a contrast between the savants, the experts, and the others, they divide up the field of science itself. And the field of philosophical thought. Sometimes, for fun, I also take seriously the symptoms of a campaign, or even of a hunt, in which badly trained horsemen sometimes have trouble identifying the prey. And initially the field.

What interest is involved for those who launched this operation in a particular academic world and, often very close to that, in publishing or the press? For instance, a news weekly printed two images of me (a photo and a caricature) to illustrate a whole “dossier” in which my name did not appear once! Is that serious? Is it decent? In whose interest was it to go for a quick practical joke rather than taking part in the work which, sadly, it replaced? This work has been going on for a long time and will continue elsewhere and differently, I hope, and with dignity: at the level of the issues involved.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
Post Reply