They submitted articles to Sociological Theory, Gender & Society, and the Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. All were rejected. I am relieved.
Grievance Studies Hoaxed
-
These are hilarious! Gender, Place and Culture publishes an article on canine "r**e culture" and the ways dogs are treated on the basis of their gender and queering behaviors. That's so funny.
As the WSJ article points out, the real beauty of this satire is that the faked articles look, sound and act like real articles in the journals.
-
They submitted articles to Sociological Theory, Gender & Society, and the Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. All were rejected. I am relieved.
So am I. But I am also worried. This insanity has been brewing also in sociology for all too long. Part of the problem is that sane people do not dare to engage with insanity, of course. But they should. For the greater good; what do you think the future funding opportunities will be otherwise? Etc.
-
I was thinking this as well. These journals are pretty much bottom of the barrel and near predatory. Lots (all?) disciplines have journals that will accept anything.
Not true. From where I am writing, many of the journals are actually highly ranked, meaning also that your department will get a hefty $$$ for publishing in these journals. These are also economic factors that keep these merry-go-rounds spinning.
-
I’m just gonna blame this all on one Frenchman: Derrida.
Those jokers did a pretty good job of poking fun at modern trends like the “posthumanities” etc., but no one can top this satire:
http://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Philmore-1982.scan_.pdf
Also, to those worried that sociology is also going “insane,” don’t forget that our field was founded by a suicidal Saint-Simonianist who spent the end of his career writing extremely detailed plans for a future religion, complete with a “positivist calendar.” How easy would that be to spoof? (It’s actually great reading.)
-
Also, to those worried that sociology is also going “insane,” don’t forget that our field was founded by a suicidal Saint-Simonianist who spent the end of his career writing extremely detailed plans for a future religion, complete with a “positivist calendar.” How easy would that be to spoof? (It’s actually great reading.)
Right. When I think about the history of sociology, I think about Weber and the like, but whatever. Things were different. Do you think mathematics went insane because Cantor was insane?
-
Naturally, people are insulting them instead of doing the sincere self-reflection and reflection on their discipline, academia, and the process that should be happening.
I hope to see more of these. Things like this will be the push that the rest of the world needs to demand better.
-
Just flagging some things that stood out to me:
- the journals accepting these papers are mainstream, mid to high ranked journals, in their respective (non-mainstream) fields
- it’s really sad to see people attack the authors, blame reviewer, or call for irb approval when it’s obvious these papers got through because they met the conventions, genre rules, and values of their field
- the papers submitted to sociology journals didn’t get past the review process
- a favorable reading is that sociology journal editors and reviewers correctly spotted the bulls**t, an equally plausible explanation is that the authors submitted their papers in a cultural studies style that didn’t meet the sociology genre conventions (didn’t use the right terms, cite the right studies, etc.) -
Just flagging some things that stood out to me:
- the journals accepting these papers are mainstream, mid to high ranked journals, in their respective (non-mainstream) fields
- it’s really sad to see people attack the authors, blame reviewer, or call for irb approval when it’s obvious these papers got through because they met the conventions, genre rules, and values of their field
- the papers submitted to sociology journals didn’t get past the review process
- a favorable reading is that sociology journal editors and reviewers correctly spotted the bulls**t, an equally plausible explanation is that the authors submitted their papers in a cultural studies style that didn’t meet the sociology genre conventions (didn’t use the right terms, cite the right studies, etc.)