"The Conceptual Penis as Social Construct"
"It's alive! Now all we have to do is construct a penis!"
Two jokesters wrote a spoof article, submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal improbably called Cogent Social Sciences, and actually got it published. This is hilarious!
https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32715/
"Cogent Social Sciences is a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences: from law to sociology, politics to geography, and sport to communication studies. Connect your research with a global audience for maximum readership and impact."
I can't wait to see this included in their next "corrigendum".
This proves the Fousesquawkian theory that if you use enough academic buzzwords that 99.9% of the English-speaking population can't understand, you can pass any academic peer-review.
Definitely funny. This is better than when I and three fellow high school students (its been a while) sat down to draft a paper on "Nathaniel Hawthorne's Ancestral Pseudo-Oedipus Complex as Exemplified in The Scarlett Letter and The House of Seven Gables" for a friend who had a paper due next period, and hadn't done any reading.
ReplyDeleteGary, this is how the Climate Science and Global Warming pseudo science was advanced. The great unknowing and low information folks eat it up like "Two scoops of ice cream".
ReplyDeleteAnd Siarlys, I have gained a new level of respect when reading your "draft". Smooth move! Someday. I will share my chemistry experiment in front of the Vice Principal's office at my High School.
Squid
Hilarious! If I we're still in college, I'd change my major.
ReplyDeleteI am thinking of submitting my treatise to them on the Cambodian influence on German literature.
ReplyDeleteThis is a non-story. The journal is a pay-to-play one.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, a lousy journal that nobody of significance respects took money to publish a lousy article.
If anything, this highlights that we need to make sure that our peer-reviewed journals actually are peer-reviewed.
Which makes perfect sense since the commentator is non-identified.
ReplyDeleteSquid, why do you have to ruin perfectly good humor by splashing your own psychoses all over it? This has nothing to do with the mountain of evidence for climate change caused by human production of carbon dioxide. Go bury your head a little deeper in the sand so we don't have to hear you talk about how you can't see anything with sand in your eyes.
ReplyDeleteSiarlys, this is exactly the point I was trying to make. The problem isn't peer review, and it isn't gender studies. It's that there are some bad journals out there, which tout themselves as "peer reviewed" when they're "pay and we'll publish".
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, people like Squid will add two and two together and come up with five.
While some people add two and two and come up with zero.
ReplyDelete