’Real’ fake research hoodwinks US journals and exposes bias

Washington: 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.

Faux research articles are not new: one of the most notable examples is physicist Alan Sokal, who in a 1996 article for a cultural studies journal wrote about cultural and philosophical issues concerning aspects of physics and math.

This time the fake research aims at mocking weak vetting of articles on hot-button social issues such as gender, race and sexuality.

The authors, writing under pseudonyms, intended to prove that academics in these fields are ready to embrace any thesis, no matter how outrageous, so long as it contributes to denouncing domination by white men.

“Making absurd and horrible ideas sufficiently politically fashionable can get them validated at the highest level of academic grievance studies,” said one of the authors, James Lindsay, in a video revealing the project.

Lindsay – that is his real name – obtained a doctorate in mathematics in 2010 from the University of Tennessee and has been fully dedicated to this project for a year and a half.

One of the published journal articles analyses 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.

“If our project shows anything, it shows that what’s coming out of these disciplines cannot currently be trusted,” Lindsay said.

Their goal, however, is not to destroy or defund the disciplines.

“We think they should be reformed,” he said. — AFP