A professor and his co-conspirator tricked an academic journal into publishing a ridiculous hoax paper about the human penis, a subject that MILO has done enough fieldwork in to earn several advanced degrees.
The hoax was explained in an article on Skeptic.com by Professor Peter Boghossian of Portland State University and Dr. James Lindsay.
The academic journal known as Cogent Social Sciences published the paper titled “The conceptual penis as a social construct.” Faked names were used by the authors and said they worked at a fake research organization. Many of the publications referenced in their article were faked or made up by a random algorithm.
Individuals who are interested in learning how far into fraud peer-reviewed science has fallen, they must read the entire paper. The authors included every crazy idea they could think of into this article.
The article says that the authors conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead, as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations.
The paper also points out that the conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.
The authors also touch on toxic hypermasculinity which they claim that it derives its significance directly from the conceptual penis and applies itself to supporting neocapitalist materialism, which is a fundamental driver of climate change, especially in the rampant use of carbon-emitting fossil fuel technologies and careless domination of virgin natural environments.
The paper emphasized on the need not to delve deeply into criticisms of dialectic objectivism, or their relationships with masculine tropes like the conceptual penis to make effective criticism of dialectic objectivism, adding that all perspectives matter.
As the article nears its end, the most distressing portion unveils itself. The author’s highlight conclusions on what their experiment proved.
The article states that the echo-chamber of morally driven fashionable nonsense coming out of the postmodernist social sciences in general, and gender studies departments are at least two problems that are damaging the credibility of the peer-review system in fields such as gender studies. The paper also underscores the complex problem of pay-to-publish journals with lax standards that cash in on the ultra-competitive academic environment.