Talk:Hypatia (journal)

Publishing hoax paper
https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ is receiving news coverage and should probable be included in the article.-Pengortm (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest giving it a month to see if people are still talking about this. It looks to me like a move to ride a trend rather than a substantive news development. I suspect the coverage about the hoaxers' flawed methodology will end up winning out (e.g., because they themselves are the bad actors they claim to be unmasking). But I also tend to be skeptical of these kinds of attacks on feminism around the world, so perhaps I am biased. Jazzcowboy (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's a fantastic thing they're doing, 'grievance studies', as the hoaxers call it, along with several fields in the humanities are in dire need to refocus their scholarship to be epistemologically sound and reject papers based on flawed arguments and bad data, even if they agree with the position of the editors. This is not a new problem, but it's one the hoaxers illustrate very well (and which the hoaxers predict will be derided as an attack against feminism, when really it's a call to do feminist scholarship in a rigorous manner, and not tolerate sophistry, even when it agrees with the aims of the field).


 * I haven't fully read the referee reports, but the excerpts are near jokes [I like this paper! We should publish it! ...] with little criticism/discussion (if any) of the soundness of the arguments made, and little (if any) criticism/discussion of the data. None of this is Hypatia-centric though. Feminist or not, this should appall you if you care about proper scholarship.


 * However as far as Hypatia is concerned, they accepted a paper, they rejected another. But I agree with that a measured approach is best, and waiting for a bit more coverage and response from the field (and its critics) is probably wise. Otherwise we're pretty much taking the hoaxers' word at face value, and that's writing from primary sources. I doubt they're James O'Keefe types of trolls, but the sting does need to be externally reviewed to see if it's sound/madeup/has flaws/whatever, and if it shows what it claims to show. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Update: with some more appropriate secondary sources. There are more than this. These secondary sources provide some reactions as well.  -Pengortm (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Jazzcowboy has removed Newcrusade's edit, so here's the source for future reference:



SarahSV (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I everyone. Thanks for putting this on the talk page. I feel that Sokal Hoax was a significant moment in the history of the journal and for that reason some sort of section ought to be created about it on the wikipedia page. If we'd like, we could perhaps put a reply by the journal in the section also. That a feminist journal fell for it is really irrelevant. This is about scholarship and sound peer reviews standards. If a journal (in any field) publishes an article solely because they agree with its conclusion, even though much of its contents are gibberish, that is a serious concern. These hoaxers have been doing the same with all sorts of journals. The Sokal Hoax at Hypatia has made it into the New York Times, the Chronicle of Higher Ed, the Wall Street Journal, Daily Nous, and Leiter's blog (who is kinda a big dealing in the philosophy world with a huge following; he probably leans to the left politically speaking too): If we have a section in here on the transracialism article, we ought to have a section on this topic too. What does everyone think? Newcrusade (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/10/sokal-hoax-redux.html
 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950
 * http://dailynous.com/2018/10/03/hypatia-journals-successfully-tricked-accepting-fake-papers/
 * https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html


 * I agree that some coverage somewhere would be OK/warranted, but likely that a dedicated article would be best, since this isn't Hypatia-specific. And that a feminist journal fell for it is certainly of relevance, since feminist journals are part of the larger 'grievance studies' academic community the hoaxers set to target. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that a stand-alone article should be created, but the parts of it relevant to Hypatia should also be covered here. SarahSV (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There is already a stand-alone article at Grievance Studies affair. Agree that this article here should cover the relevant aspects that are specific to Hypatia. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hoax sources
Primary



Secondary



Secondary sources that don't mention Hypatia



Hoax papers
Hypatia accepted one of the hoax papers for publication: "When the Joke Is on You: A Feminist Perspective on How Positionality Influences Satire". This argued that "academic hoaxes or other forms of satirical or ironic critique of social justice scholarship are unethical, characterized by ignorance and rooted in a desire to preserve privilege".

A second paper submitted to Hypatia, "The Progressive Stack: An Intersectional Feminist Approach to Pedagogy", was not accepted. It received three "revise and resubmit" reviews. The Wall Street Journal described the second paper thus :

"One hoax paper, submitted to Hypatia, proposed a teaching method centered on "experiential reparations." It suggested that professors rate students’ levels of oppression based on race, gender, class and other identity categories. Students deemed “privileged” would be kept from commenting in class, interrupted when they did speak, and “invited” to “sit on the floor” or “to wear (light) chains around their shoulders, wrists or ankles for the duration of the course.” Students who complained would be told that this “educational tool” helps them confront “privileged fragility.""

According to the Wall Street Journal, Ann Garry, Hypatia's interim editor, said she was "deeply disappointed". She continued: "Referees put in a great deal of time and effort to write meaningful reviews, and the idea that individuals would submit fraudulent academic material violates many ethical and academic norms. It is equally upsetting that the anonymous reviewer comments from that effort were shared with third parties, violating the confidentiality of the peer-review process".

SarahSV (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd add that Leiter was critical of Hypatia, but that Weinberg was exonerative, with quotes. In the full article, both had criticism of the hoaxers in some way, 'grievance studies' being an inflammatory/unhelpful framing (Leiter), and that the premise of the hoax papers not necessarily showing what they set out to show, although they could show issues with the standards for acceptance in those journals (Weinberg). Although those aren't the only criticism/praise of the hoaxers's efforts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, good idea. SarahSV (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)