Peer review, so it must be true

[Clocker]

A recent article published in Cogent Social Sciences is causing a bit of a stir. The journal is self described as “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences: from law to sociology, politics to geography, and sport to communication studies."

The article is entitled "The conceptual penis as a social construct":

Abstract: Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct.

We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity.

The article goes on to blame the "conceptual penis" for aggression, sexism, and yes, even climate change.

After being peer reviewed and published, the authors came out and revealed the whole thing was a hoax. After explaining how and why they did it, the authors concluded:

After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.
http://ace.mu.nu/ (http://ace.mu.nu/)

[tucker6]

Can't wait for HCAP's response.

[FantasticDan]

http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/22/no-the-conceptual-penis-as-a-social-cons

"Having managed to pay for a paper to be published in a deeply suspect journal the hoaxers then conclude that the entire field of Gender Studies is suspect," writes James Taylor of Bleeding Heart Libertarians in a highly critical post. "How they made this deductive leap is actually far more puzzling than how the paper got accepted."

Hank Reichman points out that the experiment works better as a critique of pay-to-publish journals, rather than as an indictment of gender studies:

"Interestingly, the hoax could have been viewed as a useful exposure of pay-to-publish journals. And the authors do dedicate some of their Skeptic piece to discussing the problem of predatory publishing. They write that "in the short term, pay-to-publish may be a significant problem because of the inherent tendencies toward conflicts of interest (profits trump academic quality, that is, the profit motive is dangerous because ethics are expensive)." But that was not the reason Boghossian and Lindsay published their piece or submitted their hoax."

[barahona44]

I've had to deal with some conceptual penises in my lifetime but I prefer to call these individuals by the shorter one syllable term.:)

[incoming]

These guys could also easily be skit writers for SNL:D

[hcap]

Can't wait for HCAP's response.If I responded to all the claptrap on this site I would not have enough time to read all the anti-Trump lefty funny stories.

[ReplayRandall]

If I responded to all the claptrap on this site I would not have enough time to read all the anti-Trump lefty funny stories.

I'm glad you're around, Hcap.....No matter the differences in opinion, it's always entertaining..:cool:

[CincyHorseplayer]

One my best girlfriends is a snowflake. I picked up on her concepts after she went to the Women's March in DC. I no longer look at my penis as just what it is. I have breathed new life into it seeing it as a diplomatic tool! I am spreading more than the good word! LOL!:cool:

[boxcar]

If I responded to all the claptrap on this site I would not have enough time to read all the anti-Trump lefty funny stories.

Since when did peer-reviewed science become claptrap? You don't put AGW in that category, do you?

[Tom]

A group of peers.....