The wikipedia page for Sokal Affair has a lovely section called "similar incidents"
> Christoph Bartneck, an Associate Professor in Information Technology at New Zealand's University of Canterbury, was invited to submit a paper to the 2016 International Conference on Atomic and Nuclear Physics organised by ConferenceSeries. With little knowledge of nuclear physics, he used iOS's auto-complete function to write the paper, choosing randomly from its suggestions after starting each sentence,[24] and submitted it under the name Iris Pear (a reference to Siri and Apple).[25] A sample sentence from the abstract for the resulting manuscript was: "The atoms of a better universe will have the right for the same as you are the way we shall have to be a great place for a great time to enjoy the day you are a wonderful person to your great time to take the fun and take a great time and enjoy the great day you will be a wonderful time for your parents and kids"[24] and the 516-word abstract contained the words "good" and "great" a combined total of 28 times (and is available online).[25] Despite making no sense, the work was accepted within three hours of submission and a conference registration fee of US$1099 requested.[24][25] The incident was compared to an earlier case where Peter Vamplew, from Federation University in Victoria, had a manuscript containing only the phrase "Get me off your fucking mailing list" accepted by the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology.[24][26] ConferenceSeries is associated with the OMICS Publishing Group,[27] which produces open access journals widely regarded as predatory, and has been accused of moving into "predatory meetings".[28] Bartneck said he was "reasonably certain that this is a money-making conference with little to no commitment to science," given the poor quality of the review process and the high cost of attendance.[24]
> "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?": In 2013 John Bohannon wrote in Science about a "sting operation" he conducted in which he submitted "a credible but mundane scientific paper, one with such grave errors that a competent peer reviewer should easily identify it as flawed and unpublishable", to 304 open-access publishers.[30] 157 journals accepted the paper. There have been some objections to the sting's methodology and about what conclusions can be drawn from it.[31][32]
> SCIgen program: a paper randomly generated by the SCIgen program was accepted without peer-review for presentation at the 2005 World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI). The conference announced the prank of having accepted the article as not peer reviewed, despite none of the three assigned peer-reviewers having submitted an opinion about its fidelity, veracity, or accuracy to its subject. The three MIT graduate students who wrote the hoax article said they were ignorant of the Sokal Affair until after submitting their article.
---
It's pretty incredible how years and years on, techies with an axe to grind continue to milk this story to get their "two minutes hate" on liberal arts.
Some journals and conferences have nothing to do with science, just want your money, and find customers in academics who need to show they were published and are willing to pay for it. Exposing a journal that pretends to have scientific rigor as such is a service, but says nothing about the discipline.
If you generate nonsense, tell a physicist that it's a paper on physics and have him read it, he'll say it's nonsense, not physics. If you generate nonsense, tell an avantgarde poetry club that it's avantgarde poetry, and have them read it, they'll agree it's avantgarde poetry. Exposing a scientific discipline as actually an avantgarde poetry club is important.
> Social Text is an academic journal published by Duke University Press. Since its inception by an independent editorial collective in 1979, Social Text has addressed a wide range of social and cultural phenomena, covering questions of gender, sexuality, race, and the environment.
It's just a small college journal that basically prides itself on not judging the things it publishes. The fact that you happily call bad scientific journals and conferences "nothing to do with science", but try to pin this random "Social Text" journal as a perfect representative of liberal arts, is funny to me.
It's not incredible at all; it's reasonable. Peer review should be comprehensive enough to notice if, for example, there are serious numerical errors or if the conclusions can't be drawn from the figures. That some people don't seem to even bother reading the papers is disgraceful. People have a right to know which platforms are farcical and I think the people you cited have provided a public service.
> Christoph Bartneck, an Associate Professor in Information Technology at New Zealand's University of Canterbury, was invited to submit a paper to the 2016 International Conference on Atomic and Nuclear Physics organised by ConferenceSeries. With little knowledge of nuclear physics, he used iOS's auto-complete function to write the paper, choosing randomly from its suggestions after starting each sentence,[24] and submitted it under the name Iris Pear (a reference to Siri and Apple).[25] A sample sentence from the abstract for the resulting manuscript was: "The atoms of a better universe will have the right for the same as you are the way we shall have to be a great place for a great time to enjoy the day you are a wonderful person to your great time to take the fun and take a great time and enjoy the great day you will be a wonderful time for your parents and kids"[24] and the 516-word abstract contained the words "good" and "great" a combined total of 28 times (and is available online).[25] Despite making no sense, the work was accepted within three hours of submission and a conference registration fee of US$1099 requested.[24][25] The incident was compared to an earlier case where Peter Vamplew, from Federation University in Victoria, had a manuscript containing only the phrase "Get me off your fucking mailing list" accepted by the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology.[24][26] ConferenceSeries is associated with the OMICS Publishing Group,[27] which produces open access journals widely regarded as predatory, and has been accused of moving into "predatory meetings".[28] Bartneck said he was "reasonably certain that this is a money-making conference with little to no commitment to science," given the poor quality of the review process and the high cost of attendance.[24]
> "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?": In 2013 John Bohannon wrote in Science about a "sting operation" he conducted in which he submitted "a credible but mundane scientific paper, one with such grave errors that a competent peer reviewer should easily identify it as flawed and unpublishable", to 304 open-access publishers.[30] 157 journals accepted the paper. There have been some objections to the sting's methodology and about what conclusions can be drawn from it.[31][32]
> SCIgen program: a paper randomly generated by the SCIgen program was accepted without peer-review for presentation at the 2005 World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI). The conference announced the prank of having accepted the article as not peer reviewed, despite none of the three assigned peer-reviewers having submitted an opinion about its fidelity, veracity, or accuracy to its subject. The three MIT graduate students who wrote the hoax article said they were ignorant of the Sokal Affair until after submitting their article.
---
It's pretty incredible how years and years on, techies with an axe to grind continue to milk this story to get their "two minutes hate" on liberal arts.