Dear Colleagues,
My first assertion is that this is not an hoax paper. Some authors submitted this to a journal, it was published. Now they must get credit for it.
They should be accountable scientifically for their claims. The fact that a reviewing committed accepted this paper do not innocent them from their claims. The fact that they are claiming that this is an hoax paper is just stating that they were unethically (wrong) doing things.
This is the first conclusion that we may take form this event:
A sound scientific community must work without people cheating deliberately. A sound scientific community should work without people bragging for cheating. A sound scientific community should work without people congratulating cheaters.
But I don’t believe that this is an hoax, so, since it was published I will assume, it is true.
These authors are offering their views to a worldwide research community and therefore can be held responsible for statements like this:
"Climate change is driven by nothing more than it is by certain damaging themes in hypermasculinity that can be best understood via the dominant rapacious approach to climate ecology identifiable with the conceptual penis.”
Since there is no quotation or reference associated, I assume that they mean it. I also assume that the reviewers let this one pass, considering the controversial argument, based on the same perception, based on a well written sentence, but also in the philosophical conviction that will allow the authors to live with never ending references to this claim. The fact that they do not provide evidence, is mainly their problem, and not the reviewer problem. There is an assumable principle that there are arguments, facts and claims with different levels of confirmation, and this is a philosophical conclusion that should be attributed to the authors.
Also, mark the scintillant passage: "The performative nature of male-on-male competition is reflected into the conceptual penis via the machismo braggadocio isomorphism not only through the behavior, but additionally in phrases regarding toxic hypermasculine competitiveness like “pissing contest,” in which winners are determined by which hypermasculine person is able to project a stream of urine the furthest, often from a height, and “dick-measuring contest,” which needs no elaboration to unveil the direct impact of performative machismo braggadocio competitiveness.”
With no reference or quotation, this claim must be awarded to the authors (two men) as resulting from an exhausting set of experiments.
Now they are claiming that this is an hoax paper. tsk, tsk… I think that, since they managed to publish it, they should forever be quoted on piss-contests, dick measuring and climate change.
I’m sure they will be proud of it.
Best regards,
Eduardo
Eduardo Côrte-Real
IADE- UE, Lisboa
> No dia 22/05/2017, às 14:34, Ali Ilhan <[log in to unmask]> escreveu:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I just realized I somehow forgot to include my remarks about the twitter
> storm this hoax created in my original email. So it looks like I am only
> talking about the peer review and the publishing process. My apologies for
> that.
>
> Ali
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|