Culture Intelligent Design Psychology

Portland U prof who hoaxed social science journals to prove a point is punished

Spread the love

Remember the team of hoaxers who, last year, showed how ridiculous social science journals are? Well, the axe fell on their prof leader, Peter Boghossian, at Portland U:

he professor who duped academic journals into publishing bogus articles has now been banned by Portland State University from conducting any and all university-sponsored research and threatened with an administrative review of his “questionable ethical behavior.”

Peter Boghossian made headlines in 2018 after he and two other researchers set out to prove a point about the integrity of “peer-reviewed” academic publications by submitting several fake studies including an analysis of “dog rape culture,” and a piece that was simply a section of Hitler’s Mein Kampf reworked to include a smattering of academic buzzwords.

After seven of the team’s fake submissions were accepted and published by esteemed academic journals, a Campus Reforminvestigation led the publisher of the infamous Portland “dog park rape culture” article to question the origins of the submission. This ultimately revealed the article as part of a larger effort by Boghossian and his team to demonstrate the inadequacies of these publications. Celine Ryan, “PSU punishes prof who duped academic journal with hoax ‘dog rape’ article” at Campus Reform

The rap is “research misconduct,” of all things.

Oh and get this: “An academic journal is continuing to sell a viral article on “rape culture” and “queer performativity” in Portland dog parks despite expressing concerns about the veracity of the research. Veracity? It was a genuine hoax, that’s what kind of veracity it had.

Now to the important item of business: What are we going to do about all the boobs who think that “social science” isn’t really science?

See also: Jerry Coyne discovers the lack of intellectual freedom on campus

Social Science Hoax Papers: Putting A Respectable Face On Persecuting The Hoaxers

Embattled “Social Sciences Hoax” Prof Is Not A Hero, He’s A Canary

Social Science Hoaxer’s Job At Risk For Revealing “Bias”

Sokal hoaxes strike social science again

Exposing gender studies as a Sokal hoax

Social Science Hoax Papers Is One Of RealClearScience’s Top Junk Science Stories Of 2018

and

Alan Sokal, Buy Yourself A Latte: “Star Wars” Biology Paper Accepted

Follow UD News at Twitter!

10 Replies to “Portland U prof who hoaxed social science journals to prove a point is punished

  1. 1
    EDTA says:

    Boghossian couldn’t have asked for a more appropriate name…

  2. 2
    AaronS1978 says:

    That is one hell of a name if you told me that name I would’ve thought you were making that up

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    Mixed feelings about this. When you’re dealing with a crazed cult like “social” “science”, it’s fun to feed the cult nonsense and watch it eagerly consume the nonsense. BUT: this particular crazed cult is blindly obeyed by corporations and governments and “protest” movements. If those cult followers start making laws and destroying careers based on the hoax, they will do more damage than before. The hoax contributes to the damage.

  4. 4
    Fasteddious says:

    Whistleblowers are often the most hurt by their actions. Entrenched elites don’t like being shown as fools.

  5. 5
    Brother Brian says:

    I am not trying to defend social science research. I have very little interest in it so could not competently comment on it.

    But I do have a problem with people who intentionally attempt to publish something they know to be wrong, whether to get a publication under their belt or to prove a point. The entire idea of peer review is based on the assumption of honesty and good will on the part of both the authors and the reviewers.

    It would not be a difficult task to get a paper accepted for publications using completely fabricated research and data. All you have to do is present a logically sound research plan, and include data that is consistent with the research plan and the conclusions drawn from it. To make acceptance more certain, make sure that the paper isn’t too controversial.

  6. 6
    Brother Brian says:

    F

    Whistleblowers are often the most hurt by their actions. Entrenched elites don’t like being shown as fools.

    You are, of course, correct. But I don’t see this as a typical whistleblower act. A whistleblower in this context would be a person who brings forward the academic misconduct of another, things like falsification or biased editing of data. What these people did in publishing hoax papers was academic misconduct, no different than the researcher who recently had many of his drug research papers retracted due to falsification of data.

    Frankly, I don’t see how the university could avoid punishing this professor. The hoaxers’ motives are irrelevant. They intentionally submitted falsified data for publication. As much as these antics (and the absurdity of the papers) amused me, he did this while being paid by the university, and I am certain that his contract prohibits the intentional fabrication of research data.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    BS Brian:

    But I do have a problem with people who intentionally attempt to publish something they know to be wrong, whether to get a publication under their belt or to prove a point.

    It is a check of the system.

    The entire idea of peer review is based on the assumption of honesty and good will on the part of both the authors and the reviewers.

    No, it isn’t. The entire idea of peer-review is to have learned people in the field check your work to see if it has any merit.

    It would not be a difficult task to get a paper accepted for publications using completely fabricated research and data.

    Because the system doesn’t work

    All you have to do is present a logically sound research plan, and include data that is consistent with the research plan and the conclusions drawn from it.

    Educated reviewers should be able to spot an stop such a thing if it doesn’t match reality.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    BS Brian:

    Frankly, I don’t see how the university could avoid punishing this professor.

    They should thank him for exposing a flaw in the system. Then all universities should revisit the “publish or perish” mentality”

    The hoaxers’ motives are irrelevant.

    That is pure ignorance. The motives are everything. But BS Brian doesn’t understand why context is important so that explains his ignorant response.

  9. 9
    EDTA says:

    > To make acceptance more certain, make sure that the paper isn’t too controversial.

    Indeed, going along with the party line increases the probability of getting a paper published. Which is to say that if you are disagreeing with consensus, the probability is lower. So the actual content/findings and their validity are not the whole story of whether you get published–as they should be.

    Although anyone doing this is taking a big career risk and possibly misusing research funds, it is helpful in striving toward truth to point out when entire fields have severe issues. (Does this guy have a gofundme page?)

  10. 10
    Brother Brian says:

    EDTA

    Indeed, going along with the party line increases the probability of getting a paper published. Which is to say that if you are disagreeing with consensus, the probability is lower.

    I don’t think there is any disagreement on this. Proposing something that goes against commonly understood science will require a higher burden of proof than something that supports it. That is why I said that it would be easier to publish fraudulent data if it was not controversial. However, either case would be serious academic misconduct.

Leave a Reply