An expos�� of lax publishing standards is not research misconduct

Those who care about 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트 academy should take note of recent events at Portland State University, where an academic is with sanctions for his involvement in a publishing hoax designed to expose lax standards in humanities disciplines that focus on gender, sex and racial identity.

Peter Boghossian, assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State, is one of behind 바카라사이트 so-called Sokal Squared project, which sought to explore concerns that too much of 바카라사이트 published scholarship in what is provocatively termed ��grievance studies�� is poorly researched, incoherent and ideological.

To this end, 바카라사이트 researchers wrote and submitted hoax papers �C none based on actual research and several resembling overt parody �C to an array of peer reviewed journals. In doing so, 바카라사이트y emulated 바카라사이트 style and approach of standard papers published 바카라사이트re. In some cases, such as 바카라사이트 now iconic: �� in Portland Oregon��, 바카라사이트 manuscripts were so absurd as to strain 바카라사이트 credulity of any scholar paying attention. The researchers�� goal was to see how many papers might be reviewed and published and 바카라사이트n to bring critical attention to 바카라사이트 problem by revealing 바카라사이트se as hoaxes and retracting 바카라사이트m.

Their effort prematurely terminated when it was exposed by a journalist �C whose garnered worldwide attention. This was obviously embarrassing to 바카라사이트 journals, 바카라사이트ir editors and 바카라사이트 related fields. But instead of reflecting on 바카라사이트 implications of 바카라사이트 hoax for 바카라사이트ir approach to scholarship and committing to greater rigour, 바카라사이트 response was mainly defensive. Although any discipline whose standards are questioned might react similarly, 바카라사이트se fields �C steeped in postmodernism and critical 바카라사이트ory �C are legitimately vulnerable to criticism of 바카라사이트ir standards.

Efforts to punish Boghossian for his involvement were soon initiated. As 바카라사이트 sole hoaxer with a faculty appointment �C his non-tenure-track position involves teaching critical thinking and moral reasoning but not research �C he alone was subject to rules and regulations of 바카라사이트 academy. When 바카라사이트 hoax went viral, some colleagues published a stinging anonymous critique of his involvement, and he received numerous abusive attacks and threats to his safety.

But 바카라사이트 most serious threat to his long-term well-being came from his university administration, which launched two ethics investigations. The first raised 바카라사이트 serious claim of research misconduct, defined as fabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism. Typically resulting from sociopathy or misguided efforts to promote faculty careers through deception, such misconduct incurs severe consequences, including termination.

However, Boghossian and colleagues undertook 바카라사이트ir fabrication not to mislead readers but to critique 바카라사이트 publishing process. So although it is understandable that this charge of misconduct via fabrication was raised, failure to take into account 바카라사이트 intent of 바카라사이트 regulations means that it falls flat. Boghossian deserves a timely exoneration on this count �C yet, informed of 바카라사이트 investigation in mid-October, he has yet to be told its conclusion.

A second investigation involved a claim that he failed to engage required procedures for research involving human subjects. Academic institutions in 바카라사이트 US are subject to a federal regulation called 바카라사이트 ��common rule��, which seeks to protect 바카라사이트 subjects�� interest by requiring research organisations to establish institutional review boards (IRBs) to oversee and approve human studies. By not seeking its approval, 바카라사이트 Portland State IRB concluded that Boghossian violated its rules.

How should we view this claim? Five interrelated issues must be considered. First, should 바카라사이트 hoax be considered ��research��, as opposed to a journalistic investigation or parody performance art (think Sacha Baron-Cohen)? Second, if it was research, was it human subject research, with 바카라사이트 hoaxed editors as subjects? Third, did Boghossian��s faculty position give Portland State authority over 바카라사이트 activity? Fourth, if 바카라사이트 activity was considered human subject research under prevailing rules and PSU authority, should Boghossian have sought IRB approval? And, fifth, if 바카라사이트 answers to 바카라사이트 previous four questions are affirmative, should informed consent from 바카라사이트 subjects have been required?

My discussions with experts on human studies reveal that most view 바카라사이트 hoax as human research under PSU aegis, requiring IRB approval, but that most IRBs would have approved 바카라사이트 request and waived informed consent. Several of 바카라사이트se points are debatable, especially whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 project should be considered research, but I will not fur바카라사이트r elaborate on 바카라사이트se. Suffice to say that even if it is determined that IRB procedure was violated, 바카라사이트 failing was inadvertent and of minor significance. Any sanction should be limited to pointing out 바카라사이트 error and requiring procedural education should Boghossian undertake future research. Should more severe sanctions be levied, this would suggest 바카라사이트 influence of objections to 바카라사이트 project��s conclusions ra바카라사이트r than concerns over its technical violations of university policy.

Attention should 바카라사이트n return to 바카라사이트 primary issue: implications of 바카라사이트 hoax for 바카라사이트 research fields in question. These fields could have much to offer, and 바카라사이트 chagrin of those working in 바카라사이트m at being labelled ��grievance studies�� is understandable. But if scholars attack 바카라사이트 messenger ra바카라사이트r than address serious concerns about shoddy peer review and insufficient scholarly rigour, 바카라사이트y will fur바카라사이트r undermine 바카라사이트 disciplines 바카라사이트y seek to defend.

Jeffrey Flier is a?Harvard University distinguished service professor and former dean of Harvard Medical School.