\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

180 HOAX Article in PEER-REVIEWED Journal: The Penis as Social Construct

« Back to News Hoax With Multiple Targets Fake ar...
Avocado duck-like boltzmann hell
  05/22/17
it's a for-profit paper mill that publishes any paper that p...
carnelian sex offender
  05/23/17
"And the penis is nothing but a phallic symbol" -...
Fiercely-loyal Native Sneaky Criminal
  05/22/17
180 link to article?
alcoholic splenetic jew gaming laptop
  05/22/17
I've been trying to find the text but the only links I've be...
Avocado duck-like boltzmann hell
  05/22/17
http://crookedtimber.org/2017/05/22/prickly-questions/ It...
Mind-boggling garnet lay private investor
  05/22/17
Yeah the journal apparently isn't well respected, but the fa...
Avocado duck-like boltzmann hell
  05/22/17
nah. there are shitty journals that will publish anything, b...
orange chapel selfie
  05/22/17
CR I'm not saying that gender studies isn't shit but jour...
Mind-boggling garnet lay private investor
  05/22/17
...
carnelian sex offender
  05/23/17
I understand that, but the journal in question practices pee...
Avocado duck-like boltzmann hell
  05/22/17
anyone who has gone through the process knows "peer rev...
Adventurous Plaza
  05/22/17
...
Mind-boggling garnet lay private investor
  05/22/17
bro what part of "this journal is corrupt" don't y...
sable community account indian lodge
  05/23/17
...
carnelian sex offender
  05/23/17
no it doesn't. it's a pay-for-play scam that publishes any a...
carnelian sex offender
  05/23/17
We effortlessly completed them in about two hours, putting i...
startling market
  05/23/17


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: May 22nd, 2017 5:25 PM
Author: Avocado duck-like boltzmann hell

« Back to News

Hoax With Multiple Targets

Fake article is published, calling for the penis to be seen conceptually, not as a body organ. Debates take off about gender studies and open-access journals.

By Scott Jaschik

May 22, 2017

70 COMMENTS

When Alan Sokal published a faux article in the journal Social Text in 1996, the target was clear. By getting a leading humanities journal to publish an article with considerable gibberish and lots of humanities jargon, Sokal and his supporters said he illustrated flaws in cultural studies, particularly related to analyzing issues involving science.

On Friday, two scholars published a fake article in the journal Cogent Social Sciences. The authors used their fake piece to satirize gender studies.

The paper is called “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.” The paper argues that people should not view the penis as a body organ. “Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct,” the paper says. “We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity.”

“Nowhere are the consequences of hypermasculine machismo braggadocio isomorphic identification with the conceptual penis more problematic than concerning the issue of climate change,” the paper says. “Climate change is driven by nothing more than it is by certain damaging themes in hypermasculinity that can be best understood via the dominant rapacious approach to climate ecology identifiable with the conceptual penis. Our planet is rapidly approaching the much-warned-about [2 degrees Celsius] climate change threshold, and due to patriarchal power dynamics that maintain present capitalist structures, especially with regard to the fossil fuel industry, the connection between hypermasculine dominance of scientific, political and economic discourses and the irreparable damage to our ecosystem is made clear.”

If the language didn’t give the authors away, their biography might have. For example, here is part of it: “While neither [author] uses Twitter, both finding the platform overly reductive, they incorporate careful reading of the relevant academic literature with observations made by searching trending hashtags to derive important social truths with high impact. In this case, their particular fascination with penises and the ways in which penises are socially problematic, especially as a social construct known as a conceptual penis, have opened an avenue to a new frontier in gender and masculinities research that can transform our cultural geographies, mitigate climate change and achieve social justice.”

The authors quickly went public with their hoax and revealed their identities -- they are Peter Boghossian, a professor of philosophy at Portland State University, and James A. Lindsay, the author of four books.

“We wrote an absurd paper loosely composed in the style of poststructuralist discursive gender theory. The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions,” wrote Boghossian and Lindsay.

Many of their references were false, they wrote, and the real ones weren’t actually read by the authors.

To the many wondering if the paper was printed just as submitted, they wrote that they received comments from two peer reviewers, both of whom praised the paper. One asked for minor changes. “We effortlessly completed them in about two hours, putting in a little more nonsense about ‘manspreading’ (which we alleged to be a cause of climate change) and ‘dick-measuring contests.’”

In explaining the goal of the hoax, they wrote, “We intended to test the hypothesis that flattery of the academic left’s moral architecture in general, and of the moral orthodoxy in gender studies in particular, is the overwhelming determiner of publication in an academic journal in the field. That is, we sought to demonstrate that a desire for a certain moral view of the world to be validated could overcome the critical assessment required for legitimate scholarship. Particularly, we suspected that gender studies is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil. On the evidence, our suspicion was justified.”

They also noted concerns they have about open-access publishing that is combined with article processing fees. Some open-access publishers ask for or require such fees as a means to maintain free content. Some colleges and universities, seeking to support open-access publishing, will pay such fees for faculty members. (Boghossian noted that Portland State, where he teaches, has such a policy but that he did not use it because he was publishing a hoax paper.) The hoaxers said that they did not think all open-access publishing was poor, nor that fees necessarily were wrong. But they said that the speedy publication of their paper, with an author fee, raised questions, at least about this publication.

As word about the hoax spread over the weekend, the first wave of reactions came from people who thought the hoax said something about the state of the humanities or gender studies.

But then another set of critiques started to appear, taking issue with those who produced the hoax and with those praising them. This set of critiques argued that this hoax did not come close to Sokal’s. His appeared in Social Text, then and now a widely respected journal in the humanities. Cogent Social Sciences is not a major player in scholarship, these scholars noted, and its business model (taking author payments) makes it suspect.

James Taylor, associate professor of philosophy at the College of New Jersey, wrote on the blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians that “it turns out that the joke’s on the hoaxers themselves -- both for failing to spot some very obvious red flags about this ‘journal,’ and for their rather bizarre leaps of logic.” The way the journal charges authors is that red flag, Taylor writes.

“This tells us very little about gender studies, but an awful lot about the perpetrators of this ‘hoax’ … and those who tout it as a takedown of an entire field.” Taylor’s headline for his piece: “Why the ‘Conceptual Penis’ Hoax Is Just a Big Cock-Up.”

Ketan Joshi, an Australian scientist and consultant, wrote on his blog that it is important to remember that many scientists have published hoax articles in science journals -- and that humanities disciplines are not the only ones vulnerable to such attacks. Further, he wrote that “a single instance isn’t sufficient evidence to conclude that an entire field of research is crippled by religious man-hating fervor, and that anyone pushing that line is probably weirdly compromised.”

Others are less willing to say that this is simply a case of a compromised open-access publication process.

Notably, the hoax paper was first submitted to NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, which is a scholarly journal published by the Nordic Association for Research on Men and Masculinities, and Taylor & Francis, an international academic publisher of many peer-reviewed journals, most of which are not open access.

NORMA rejected the piece, but when it did so it suggested Cogent Social Sciences might be a good fit. And NORMA’s editors noted the ease with which the submission could go to Cogent Social Sciences, which is also affiliated with Taylor & Francis.

Still others have noted that while there are “predatory” open-access journals that publish only when paid to do so by authors, there are many signs that Cogent Social Sciences is widely considered to be legitimate. For example, it is listed in the Directory of Open-Access Journals, which describes itself as a group of journals that share “a commitment to quality, peer-reviewed open access.”

The sociology blog Orgtheory.net wrote of the connections between Taylor & Francis, NORMA and Cogent Social Science. “So get this: If your article gets rejected from one of our regular journals, we’ll automatically forward it to one of our crappy interdisciplinary pay-to-play journals, where we’ll gladly take your (or your funder’s or institution’s) money to publish it after a cursory ‘peer review.’ That is a new one to me. There’s a hoax going on here, all right. But I don’t think it’s gender studies that’s being fooled.”

Inside Higher Ed reached out to editors and spokespersons for Cogent Social Sciences, NORMA and Taylor & Francis and received no responses.

As of Sunday, after more than 24 hours of online discussion of the conceptual penis article being a hoax, it remains online at the Cogent Social Sciences website.

Read more byScott Jaschik

jump to comments

Get our Daily News Update

WANT TO ADVERTISE? CLICK HERE

Browse Jobs by Category

-Hide comments

You may also be interested in...

Open-access mega-journal PLOS ONE continues to shrink

PLOS Names New CEO

Elsevier Announces Interdisciplinary Open Access Journal

Today’s News from Inside Higher Ed

Experiments With a New Way of Paying for College

Signs of a Ceiling in Online Ed Market

Contracts Withheld

Inside Higher Ed’s Quick Takes

Attempt to Use FAFSA Tool to Get Trump's Taxes

Carpool Karaoke to the UW-Milwaukee Graduation

Iowa Will Pay $6.5 Million to Settle 2 Bias Suits

Was Murder of Bowie State Student a Hate Crime?

Education Department Alters Loan Servicing

Pressure Builds From Low Endowment Returns

WHAT OTHERS ARE READING

Faux scholarly article sets off criticism of gender studies and open-access publishing

Dozens walk out at Notre Dame to protest Pence, who criticizes political correctness

Reports finds rising competition in online education market

A glimpse into some experiments with income-share agreements

Despite credit loss, starting at two-year college can be inexpensive start to four-year degree

Was Murder of Bowie State Student a Hate Crime?

Philosophy professors at St. Thomas in Houston, their contracts late, fear for their jobs

Iowa Will Pay $6.5 Million to Settle 2 Bias Suits

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33368716)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 23rd, 2017 11:22 AM
Author: carnelian sex offender

it's a for-profit paper mill that publishes any paper that pays the $1300 fee. not a real 'peer-reviewed' journal.

https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/that-gender-studies-hoax-is-dumb-but-look-at-this-business-model/

The fact that it ended up there means they probably submitted it to a 'real' journal published by Taylor & Francis, got rejected, and it was forwarded to Taylor & Francis's pay-for-play 'journal.'

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33375273)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 22nd, 2017 5:26 PM
Author: Fiercely-loyal Native Sneaky Criminal

"And the penis is nothing but a phallic symbol"

-Foucault's Pendulum

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33368722)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 22nd, 2017 5:36 PM
Author: alcoholic splenetic jew gaming laptop

180

link to article?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33368771)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 22nd, 2017 5:37 PM
Author: Avocado duck-like boltzmann hell

I've been trying to find the text but the only links I've been able to come up with have linked to the journal being hoaxed, which appears to have recently removed it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33368775)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 22nd, 2017 5:39 PM
Author: Mind-boggling garnet lay private investor

http://crookedtimber.org/2017/05/22/prickly-questions/

It's actually a shitty pale Sokal wannabe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33368782)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 22nd, 2017 5:44 PM
Author: Avocado duck-like boltzmann hell

Yeah the journal apparently isn't well respected, but the fact that the article made it through peer review says a lot about gender studies' standards, or lack thereof.

Edit: "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" wasn't even peer reviewed. This one was.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33368806)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 22nd, 2017 5:46 PM
Author: orange chapel selfie

nah. there are shitty journals that will publish anything, basically pay to publish.

they're basically the university of phoenixes of the publishing world.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33368818)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 22nd, 2017 5:50 PM
Author: Mind-boggling garnet lay private investor

CR

I'm not saying that gender studies isn't shit but journal standards are SPS across the board

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33368843)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 23rd, 2017 11:25 AM
Author: carnelian sex offender



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33375301)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 22nd, 2017 5:52 PM
Author: Avocado duck-like boltzmann hell

I understand that, but the journal in question practices peer review. The journal may be shit, but the fact that the article made it through peer review is pretty damning.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33368855)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 22nd, 2017 5:54 PM
Author: Adventurous Plaza

anyone who has gone through the process knows "peer review" is retarded and very easy to game

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33368864)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 22nd, 2017 5:55 PM
Author: Mind-boggling garnet lay private investor



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33368871)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 23rd, 2017 10:59 AM
Author: sable community account indian lodge

bro what part of "this journal is corrupt" don't you understand - it /claims/ it practices peer review but unless you personally have investigated the peers, you don't know if they actually reviewed it or not

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33375132)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 23rd, 2017 11:25 AM
Author: carnelian sex offender



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33375303)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 23rd, 2017 11:26 AM
Author: carnelian sex offender

no it doesn't. it's a pay-for-play scam that publishes any article rejected by Taylor & Francis's real peer-reviewed journals for a fee.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33375307)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 23rd, 2017 11:20 AM
Author: startling market

We effortlessly completed them in about two hours, putting in a little more nonsense about ‘manspreading’ (which we alleged to be a cause of climate change) and ‘dick-measuring contests.’”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3622907&forum_id=2#33375256)