Giving scientific journals the equivalent of mystery shoppers

This is going to annoy a lot of people...

Three US researchers have pulled off a sophisticated hoax by publishing fake research with ridiculous conclusions in sociology journals to expose what they see as ideological bias and a lack of rigorous vetting at these publications. Seven of the 20 fake articles written by the trio were accepted by journals after being approved by peer-review committees tasked with checking the authors' research. A faux study claiming that "Dog parks are Petri dishes for canine 'rape culture'" by one "Helen Wilson" was published in May in the journal Gender, Place and Culture. The article suggests that training men like dogs could reduce cases of sexual abuse.

One of the published journal articles analyzes why a man masturbating while thinking of a woman without her consent commits a sexual assault. Another is a feminist rewrite of a chapter of "Mein Kampf." Some articles—such as a study of the impact of the use of an anal dildo by heterosexual men on their transphobia —even claimed to rely on data such as interviews, which could have been verified by the journal gatekeepers. For that "study" the authors claimed to have interviewed 13 men. In the dog article, the authors claimed to have examined the genitals of nearly 10,000 canines. "If our project shows anything, it shows that what's coming out of these disciplines cannot currently be trusted," Lindsay told AFP.

"We've learned that when you send in a convincing paper full of fake data, you can get it published. But we've known that for decades," said Ivan Oransky, from the site Retraction Watch. But in this case, according to professor of gender studies at the University of Sussex Alison Phipps, writing in Times Higher Education, it's clear that the researchers were not engaging in "good-faith critique," as they claimed, but rather "actually aim to undermine fields they have political – not scholarly – objections to."

Roberto Refinetti, editor-in-chief of the journal Sexuality and Culture, told AFP that the article on dildos "was reviewed by three university-affiliated experts in the field, none of whom suspect a hoax." Refinetti was equally defensive. The fabrication by the authors "speaks against their integrity, not against the integrity of the journal that published the findings," he said.

Oh blatant double standards ! Exposing political motivations of a peer-reviewed journal is absolutely a legitimate, good-faith critique. If a journal can be fooled by nonsense, it's the journal's responsibility to improve its standards.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-real-fake-hoodwinks-journals.html