Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » Academic journals are the dumbest things I've ever read
  1. Results 1 to 30 of 55
  2. Page 1 of 2
  3. 1
  4. 2
  6. Last

Thread: Academic journals are the dumbest things I've ever read

post 1655381863 01-31-2022, 09:49 PM
-
#1
  1. Spartanize
  2. BB Misc's Worst Member
  1. Spartanize
  2. BB Misc's Worst Member
  3. Join Date: Aug 2014
  4. Posts: 4,820
  5. Rep Power: 756

Academic journals are the dumbest things I've ever read

They take 5 pages and a bunch of fancy words, to say what you could say in 1 paragraph with plain English
Keep Calm And Trust The Governor
post 1655386783 02-01-2022, 12:53 AM
-
#2
  1. FilsGoodMan
  2. Registered User
  1. FilsGoodMan
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2017
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 6,656
  6. Rep Power: 21260
Originally Posted By Spartanize⏩
They take 5 pages and a bunch of fancy words, to say what you could say in 1 paragraph with plain English
This, fukin annoying af

Reminds me of essays in Uni, brb write 2000 words on what a target market is
PUREBLOOD CREW
post 1655394493 02-01-2022, 06:34 AM
-
#3
  1. ymer
  1. ymer
  3. Join Date: Feb 2005
  4. Posts: 24,422
  5. Rep Power: 85485
Post deleted by user
post 1655394873 02-01-2022, 06:42 AM
-
#4
  1. PAU1
  2. ⌛
  1. PAU1
  2. ⌛
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Posts: 14,416
  5. Rep Power: 342554
From the wiki:
The grievance studies affair, also referred to as the "Sokal Squared" scandal, was the project of a team of three authors—Peter Boghossian, James A. Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose—to highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and eroding criteria in several academic fields. Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals in cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention.

Prior to the affair, concerns about the intellectual validity of much research influenced by postmodern philosophy and critical theory were highlighted by various academics who composed nonsensical hoax articles parodying the language and content of much research in the modern humanities and succeeded in having these articles accepted for publication in academic journals. One of the most noted previous examples of this was Alan Sokal's 1996 hoax in Social Text, a cultural studies journal, which inspired Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose. The trio set out with the intent to expose problems in what they called "grievance studies", referring to academic areas where they claim "a culture has developed in which only certain conclusions are allowed ... and put social grievances ahead of objective truth".[1][2][3] As such, the trio, identifying themselves as leftists and liberals, described their project as an attempt to raise awareness for what they believed was the damage that postmodernism and identity politics-based scholarship was having on leftist political projects, but mainly Science and Academia.

Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose wrote 20 articles that promoted deliberately absurd ideas or morally questionable acts and submitted them to various peer-reviewed journals. Although they had planned for the project to run until January 2019, the trio admitted to the hoax in October 2018 after journalists from The Wall Street Journal revealed that "Helen Wilson", the pseudonym used for their article published in Gender, Place & Culture, did not exist. By the time of the reveal, 4 of their 20 papers had been published; 3 had been accepted but not yet published; 6 had been rejected; and 7 were still under review. Included among the articles that were published were arguments that dogs engage in rape culture and that men could reduce their transphobia by anally penetrating themselves with sex toys, as well as Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf rewritten in feminist language.[2][4] The first of these had won special recognition from the journal that published it.

The hoax received a polarized reception within academia. Some academics praised it for exposing flaws that they saw as widespread among sectors of the humanities and social sciences influenced by postmodernism, critical theory, and identity politics. Others criticised what they perceived as the unethical nature of submitting deliberately bogus research. Some critics also asserted that the work did not represent a scientific investigation, given that the project did not include a control group, further arguing that invalid arguments and poor standards of peer-review were not restricted to "grievance studies" subjects but found across much of academia.
post 1655394933 02-01-2022, 06:43 AM
-
#5
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Scientific articles are not written for a general audience.
post 1655395153 02-01-2022, 06:47 AM
-
#6
  1. PAU1
  2. ⌛
  1. PAU1
  2. ⌛
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Posts: 14,416
  5. Rep Power: 342554
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Scientific articles are not written for a general audience.
Damn bro, I didn't take much notice of you before you made it your personal crusade to correct the record (tm) on c-19. Now that you're on my radar, it appears you're just a professional ****get.
post 1655395183 02-01-2022, 06:48 AM
-
#7
  1. ymer
  1. ymer
  3. Join Date: Feb 2005
  4. Posts: 24,422
  5. Rep Power: 85485
Post deleted by user
post 1655395233 02-01-2022, 06:49 AM
-
#8
  1. HMFIC_BROWSIN
  2. Buy high, sell higher.
  1. HMFIC_BROWSIN
  2. Buy high, sell higher.
  3. Join Date: Feb 2009
  4. Location: Arizona, United States
  5. Posts: 73,524
  6. Rep Power: 348838
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Scientific articles are not written for a general audience.
This.

You need to find well credentialed people who are also good writers to interpret and present the data in plain english.
post 1655395253 02-01-2022, 06:49 AM
-
#9
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By ymer⏩
"We have to pass it so we can know what's in it"

You mean you have to trust the "scientists", not the "science".
No, they just aren't written for a general audience. That's not the purpose.
post 1655395413 02-01-2022, 06:52 AM
-
#10
  1. HMFIC_BROWSIN
  2. Buy high, sell higher.
  1. HMFIC_BROWSIN
  2. Buy high, sell higher.
  3. Join Date: Feb 2009
  4. Location: Arizona, United States
  5. Posts: 73,524
  6. Rep Power: 348838
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
No, they just aren't written for a general audience. That's not the purpose.
and then msm cancels the people who present the data to a general audience lmao.
post 1655395553 02-01-2022, 06:56 AM
-
#11
  1. DDSF1
  2. Better than you
  1. DDSF1
  2. Better than you
  3. Join Date: Dec 2016
  4. Posts: 27,860
  5. Rep Power: 260144
Academic Journal articles are not five pages. Once in a while there is some smaller article, ten pages, but usually fifteen-forty pages, depending on the specific journals space and requirements, as well as the authors idea and topic being covered.

They are written for others in their discipline and academia in general, not for a general audience, as the use of terminology, concepts, the history of debate/issue, etc., are all outside the scope of understanding of a general audience (typically).

The reading level required to understand them is beyond the typical miscers level.

The comically absurd articles are found in feminist, homosexual, and sjw "academic" journals, or, sadly, once serious journals that became hijacked by wokeness.

And, no, you could not say it in one paragraph in the manner you are speaking of OP, however, the short treatment is called an abstract and is usually at the top of an article so the researchers scanning through hundreds/thousands of articles can see if it covers what they are looking for.
post 1655395603 02-01-2022, 06:56 AM
-
#12
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By HMFIC_BROWSIN⏩
and then msm cancels the people who present the data to a general audience lmao.
I rarely see accurate summaries when the food that is a scientific article is pre-chewed for mass consumption.
post 1655396023 02-01-2022, 07:05 AM
-
#13
  1. DSTEE
  2. Registered User
  1. DSTEE
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2012
  4. Posts: 10,150
  5. Rep Power: 41750
The journals are rigorous work made by and for professionals in the field. It's very detailed so every detail in the study/finding is clear and can be replicated by others in the field to confirm it's validity. It's likely the most autistic and objective thing you can read.


There are plenty of articles and books processed and written for the general population. But they can be tainted with the authors world view, details are lost, and the overall findings are more sensationalized than the original paper
post 1655396773 02-01-2022, 07:20 AM
-
#14
  1. DrewDarden
  1. DrewDarden
  3. Join Date: Nov 2016
  4. Posts: 23,060
  5. Subscribers: 5
  6. Rep Power: 510946
You get used to it when you spend hours upon hours reading them for graduate school research.

And when you have to write more serious research papers yourself, you realize why they write the way they do: It's about being specific and accurate. It's not Huck Finn, written for your reading pleasure. It's research. If it doesn't challenge you to understand it, they probably didn't put much thought into the work.
Misc Lifting Crew (Team Lead)

Summer 2026 Q&A Series:
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=1000018276&f=1001
post 1655400733 02-01-2022, 08:29 AM
-
#15
  1. ymer
  1. ymer
  3. Join Date: Feb 2005
  4. Posts: 24,422
  5. Rep Power: 85485
Post deleted by user
post 1655401293 02-01-2022, 08:39 AM
-
#16
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By ymer⏩
So you are qualified to read the articles but "others" (the general public) isn't?
Many articles are open access these days, which means you don't need a subscription or affiliation with an institution that maintains a subscription. It costs extra for open access, but we generally include those costs in grant proposals.

There are no qualifications required to read or access articles.
post 1655401353 02-01-2022, 08:39 AM
-
#17
  1. coast2coastam
  1. coast2coastam
  3. Join Date: Jun 2009
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 11,341
  6. Rep Power: 140038
When I was in undergrad I had a math professor tell us that him and his friends submitted a bunch of nonsense just to see if anyone actually proofreads those things, and what they submitted was published. I forgot how long it took them to discover it was a joke, or if they ended up telling the journal themselves.

People put academia on a pedestal in the same way thirsty men put women on one. There are a handful of brilliant minds, and a lot of people scraping by, plagiarizing, and being scumbags in general. It's no different than anything else, if anything it's worse.
post 1655401463 02-01-2022, 08:41 AM
-
#18
  1. rectifryer
  2. enlightened
  1. rectifryer
  2. enlightened
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 25,634
  5. Rep Power: 208783
Originally Posted By Spartanize⏩
They take 5 pages and a bunch of fancy words, to say what you could say in 1 paragraph with plain English
nailed it. Its to obfuscate the process to defend from peer review srs.
Boycott foodservice industry crew
post 1655401663 02-01-2022, 08:44 AM
-
#19
  1. LtGoose
  1. LtGoose
  3. Join Date: Jan 2014
  4. Location: Dallas, Texas, United States
  5. Age: 34
  6. Posts: 33,623
  7. Rep Power: 262212
Never use $1 words when nickels will do. It's all superfluous for the sake of being superfluous.
post 1655402293 02-01-2022, 08:52 AM
-
#20
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By coast2coastam⏩
When I was in undergrad I had a math professor tell us that him and his friends submitted a bunch of nonsense just to see if anyone actually proofreads those things, and what they submitted was published. I forgot how long it took them to discover it was a joke, or if they ended up telling the journal themselves.

People put academia on a pedestal in the same way thirsty men put women on one. There are a handful of brilliant minds, and a lot of people scraping by, plagiarizing, and being scumbags in general. It's no different than anything else, if anything it's worse.
Link to article?

How'd it get past reviewers, editors, and proofs?

You also have to sign regarding the integrity of the work. Sounds like a less than ethical prof.
post 1655402423 02-01-2022, 08:55 AM
-
#21
  1. solidus2k3
  2. Registered User
  1. solidus2k3
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2003
  4. Location: rofl land
  5. Age: 38
  6. Posts: 41,584
  7. Rep Power: 123781
just read the abstract
<HTC>
post 1655402483 02-01-2022, 08:55 AM
-
#22
  1. knightofday
  2. Registered User
  1. knightofday
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2013
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Age: 39
  6. Posts: 14,588
  7. Rep Power: 126002
anyone whos been involved in academia knows its the most worthless, useless peter puffing field in existence


Huge salaries to jerk each other off and not ruffle feathers, lazy ass losers all of them srs
post 1655402553 02-01-2022, 08:56 AM
-
#23
  1. knightofday
  2. Registered User
  1. knightofday
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2013
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Age: 39
  6. Posts: 14,588
  7. Rep Power: 126002
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Link to article?

How'd it get past reviewers, editors, and proofs?

You also have to sign regarding the integrity of the work. Sounds like a less than ethical prof.
negged on recharge

There have been many such experiments that are well documented, its all bullchit
post 1655402603 02-01-2022, 08:56 AM
-
#24
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By knightofday⏩
anyone whos been involved in academia knows its the most worthless, useless peter puffing field in existence


Huge salaries to jerk each other off and not ruffle feathers, lazy ass losers all of them srs
Huge salaries?

Lollerskates

Also, academia isn't a field.
post 1655402763 02-01-2022, 08:58 AM
-
#25
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By knightofday⏩
negged on recharge

There have been many such experiments that are well documented, its all bullchit
So no link?
post 1655403383 02-01-2022, 09:11 AM
-
#26
  1. coast2coastam
  1. coast2coastam
  3. Join Date: Jun 2009
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 11,341
  6. Rep Power: 140038
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Link to article?

How'd it get past reviewers, editors, and proofs?

You also have to sign regarding the integrity of the work. Sounds like a less than ethical prof.
Lol if you think I have a link from an anecdote that was told to me in class a decade ago. If you want to hold those things in high regard and believe in the integrity and infallibility of academia, so be it, since that's what you're getting at.

I have no idea how it got past reviewers and so on, my guess is they were lazy and not actually carefully looking over what was submitted.
post 1655403503 02-01-2022, 09:13 AM
-
#27
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By coast2coastam⏩
Lol if you think I have a link from an anecdote that was told to me in class a decade ago. If you want to hold those things in high regard and believe in the integrity and infallibility of academia, so be it, since that's what you're getting at.

I have no idea how it got past reviewers and so on, my guess is they were lazy and not actually carefully looking over what was submitted.
I suppose I'm just hesitant to condemn such a broad entity based on an anecdotal opinion
post 1655403943 02-01-2022, 09:20 AM
-
#28
  1. ymer
  1. ymer
  3. Join Date: Feb 2005
  4. Posts: 24,422
  5. Rep Power: 85485
Post deleted by user
post 1655404273 02-01-2022, 09:24 AM
-
#29
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By ymer⏩
You just said normal people don't understand them but you do.
Nope.

I said they aren't written for the general public and that summaries provided by media are often inaccurate.
post 1655404513 02-01-2022, 09:27 AM
-
#30
  1. coast2coastam
  1. coast2coastam
  3. Join Date: Jun 2009
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 11,341
  6. Rep Power: 140038
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
I suppose I'm just hesitant to condemn such a broad entity based on an anecdotal opinion
Even if I provided you with documentation of this happening, it would be silly to "condemn" all of academia because of it, so I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than highlighting what I posted was in fact an anecdote, which should be obvious to anyone reading it.

Lol again at "link?", like you're the embodiment of snopes or something.
  1. Page 1 of 2
  2. 1
  3. 2
  5. Last
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts