"The Grievance Studies Affair" Project
Reconstructing and Assessing the Experimental Design
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5338212 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mikko Lagerspetz (0000-0001-8639-6971, Åbo Akademi University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 402-424 |
| Publication date | 2021-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Science Technology & Human Values (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0162-2439 • E-ISSN: 1552-8251 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0162243920923087 |
| OpenAlex | W3021550533 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 13 |
| References cited | 17 |
Recently, high media visibility was reached by an experiment that involved "hoaxlike deception" of journals within humanities and social sciences. Its aim was to provide evidence of "inadequate" quality standards especially within gender studies. The article discusses the project in the context of both previous systematic studies of peer reviewing and scientific hoaxes and analyzes its possible empirical outcomes. Despite claims to the contrary, the highly political, both ethically and methodologically flawed "experiment" failed to provide the evidence it sought. The experiences can be summed up as follows: (1) journals with higher impact factors were more likely to reject papers submitted as part of the project; (2) the chances were better, if the manuscript was allegedly based on empirical data; (3) peer reviews can be an important asset in the process of revising a manuscript; and (4) when the project authors, with academic education from neighboring disciplines, closely followed the reviewers' advice, they were able to learn relatively quickly what is needed for writing an acceptable article. The boundary between a seriously written paper and a "hoax" gradually became blurred. Finally (5), the way the project ended showed that in the long run, the scientific community will uncover fraudulent practices
Deception · Empirical evidence · Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Grievance · Hoax · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Engineering · History · Law · Legal Education and Practice Innovations · Psychology · Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics · Social Psychology
The Marginalisation of the Learned Essay
Airing Grievances
Negacionismo endógeno no jogo acadêmico da Educação Física
Evidence Engines
Taking ‘nonsense’ seriously
A Re-Evaluation of the Grievance Studies Affair
Critical international politics at an impasse
The Grievance Studies Affair; One Funeral at a Time
Revisiting Hargreaves 30 years on
Guerra de las ciencias y la pugna por la razón
White Supremacy in the Nordic Countries
Introduction
Intersectionality and Science and Technology Studies
Conjectures and Refutations
Publication prejudices
Who's Afraid of Peer Review?
Scientific peer review
Agency
Anti-gender campaigns in Europe
"Anthropomorphism and Anthropomorphic Selection—Beyond the "Cute Response
Confirmational Response Bias Among Social Work Journals
Puck in the Laboratory
The Sokal Affair in Context
Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences
The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason
| Unique citing works | 13 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,6 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 12 |