From the Wall Street Journal:
How three scholars gulled academic journals to publish hoax papers on ‘grievance studies.’
By Jillian Kay Melchior
Oct. 2, 2018 6:55 p.m. ET
I’m particularly looking forward to reading, out of the seven published hoaxes, the 3000 word article published in Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work that was based on an excerpt from Mein Kampf but revised for the tenets of intersectional feminism: “Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism.” (Doing a cut-and-replace of “the Jews” with “cisgender heterosexual white men” would seem pretty foolproof in the Current Year, but maybe they did something more elaborate.)
From Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography:
Received 27 Nov 2017, Accepted 19 Feb 2018, Published online: 22 May 2018
Download citation https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346
This article addresses questions in human geography and the geographies of sexuality by drawing upon one year of embedded in situ observations of dogs and their human companions at three public dog parks in Portland, Oregon. The purpose of this research is to uncover emerging themes in human and canine interactive behavioral patterns in urban dog parks to better understand human a-/moral decision-making in public spaces and uncover bias and emergent assumptions around gender, race, and sexuality. Specifically, and in order of priority, I examine the following questions: (1) How do human companions manage, contribute, and respond to violence in dogs? (2) What issues surround queer performativity and human reaction to homosexual sex between and among dogs? and (3) Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender? It concludes by applying Black feminist criminology categories through which my observations can be understood and by inferring from lessons relevant to human and dog interactions to suggest practical applications that disrupts hegemonic masculinities and improves access to emancipatory spaces.
Please note the expression of concern regarding this article, available at https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1507885
… To date, the author has not responded to our request to provide appropriate documentation confirming their identity.
Of course, as anybody who follows New Real Peer Review can tell you, a lot of genuine academic papers seem like hoaxes. For example, “autoethnography” means you just ramble for awhile about whatever you like to do in your spare time, making sure to employ suitable jargon, and you are good to go to get it published in an academic journal. E.g.,
I was watching America’s Got Talent, which I really enjoy, and it occurred to me, as a queer nonbinary of color, that the contestants were engaging in performativity (Derrida 1988, Butler 1993).
Okay, I made that up, but you can find countless real papers that are equally inane. For example, is this one of the seven hoax papers or a genuine published work?
This is an autoethnography about the role of nail salons in relation to my own evolving feminist and femme consciousness. Through a story of desire, grief, isolation, and recuperation, I explore the ways that the development of my sexual and gender identities relies on women’s intimacy within and across lines of commodification, race, class, and sexuality. In so doing, I attempt to reconcile my desire for high femme signifiers with working-class, anti-racist, and anti-colonialist solidarity, to articulate what I term a FemmeNist consciousness.
I think this means she’s a lesbian but she likes getting her nails done at salons staffed by poor Vietnamese ladies.
Somebody should post the 7 hoax articles along with 7 equally absurd real articles and invite readers to guess which is which.
The three hoaxers wrote up a lengthy explanation in Aero.