You have got to read this to believe some of the crap drowning our academia these days. This episode shows how generations of kids are paying good money to study pure, unmitigated, mind-warping drivel. It ought to go without saying that the paper, ‘The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct’, was a spoof. Yet it was peer-reviewed by two supposed experts in gender studies, one of whom praised the way it captured ‘the issue of hypermasculinity through a multidimensional and nonlinear process’, and the other of whom marked it ‘outstanding’ in every applicable category. Read more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/do-penises-cause-climate-change-discuss/
Who were the alleged experts who reviewed the paper? They just say "two alleged experts". While I am the first to get on my soap box about feminism run amok, the article itself sounds like crackpottery.
We may never know exactly who those experts were as the article itself has been retracted. Although it appears that by looking over the website, that article wasn't the only joke some people are playing on them. I refer you to another story I found on that site right HERE. Apparently the people behind Feminist Studies watched Oswald Bates on In Living Color and didn't realize it was a satire.
Well then it really is just hearsay then. And even if they were known, there is no assurance that anyone else would claim them as experts, Hell, I've been cited as an expert in my field several times and I have no idea what I'm doing!
I would argue however that very big penises [dysphemistic term preferred] are the ones resisting action on climate change.
I dunno if would call it hearsay, just a currently unprovable item due to the site itself making such information unavailable - likely because they want to protect the idiots who did so. I mean, I've worked in education for decades, and these kinds of papers foisted about by academia are sadly a common occurrence in our field too. Papers written by people with no practical experience INSIDE a classroom telling us HOW to teach and get better results using all sorts of jargon and buzzwords that end up making no sense - and approved by equally clueless people. Based on personal experience, I believe that it actually happened. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to write a paper on how women are creating an ecological crisis by using up all the worlds iron, and how this will ultimately lead to global fission. It'll be just like printing money!
Well if it didn't sound like total bs you might have a point. I have heard of nonsense papers getting published. It happens. That is why we not only have peer review before publication, but afterwards as well. The rule of thumb is that nonsense papers will have continually diminishing citations. Papers with the support of the academic community will be cited and more and more often over time. It is complicated to figure out how "the academic community" views a subject because it is a very slow process. The problem we have today is that the media, not academia, jump on every paper as if it means something. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they are just one of thousands and vastly in the minority. Sometimes they are ground breaking and are published by a team of our best scientists. Sometimes a paper is only accepted over time and many tests and efforts to falsify the claim. This is all why the public should listen to our best experts and turn off crap like this. Some nonsense paper reviewed by two alleged experts who can't be identified is certainly not a consensus. It is just noise.
But in SJW circles not knowing what you are doing is not a disqualification. Asserting that penises do not cause climate change after someone say it does would be a disqualification though: misogyny.
Not "alleged" experts, but it was "peer-reviewed by two 'supposed' experts in gender studies". Pretty much the same thing I guess. Hey, it is what it is, a spoof, nothing more.
Frankly, you are wasting bandwidth. I strongly suspect my ex wife was trying to do me in and you sound more paranoid than I was when I found the secret life insurance policy.
Alleged experts. We have no idea who they were. You are all gossiping like a bunch of old women. How's that for misogyny?
What sort of expertise do it take to be a gender studies expert except to accuse men of all of the evil in the world?
The journal is somewhat reputable. The issue it exposes is with pay to publish peer review journal models. The field is split between wanting to provide free content without a pay wall, and needing that pay wall to ensure strong peer review and a lack of perverse incentives.
