Just when I thought Academia couldn't sink any lower.

[Imnobody4]

Not just a PhD in wanking, but a peer-reviewed paper on masturbating to images of young boys. Published in "Qualitative Methods". t.co/L3MnSkYQFN

twitter.com/ProfAliceS/status/1556584749447143425?t=v_5NNIZDXKNzFbMBZxWsfQ&s=19

How did this get past Manchester University's ethics process @OfficialUoM ? Masturbating to images of children and writing it up for public consumption does not seem ethical to me. This is hugely disturbing.

Actually I'm speechless.

[achillestoes]

This couldn’t be more serious. The University of Manchester should seriously consider police involvement if they haven’t already.

[Fladdermus]

I expect this is going to have an effect on academia as a whole. It's certainly making the academics I know sit up and review their own attitudes and processes. Even those with extremely liberal views are horrified at this. I know one journal editor, not connected with this in anyway, who is reviewing all their procedures to ensure nothing like this ever makes it through their door.

[1blossomtree]

I know one journal editor, not connected with this in anyway, who is reviewing all their procedures to ensure nothing like this ever makes it through their door

I'm baffled by this because when you submit somwhere an editor will first review your paper to check it fits with the journal/isn't complete nonsense. Then it's passed to peer reviewers.

"Changing procedures" would surely just meanmaking sure the editors for your journal aren't idiots/do a basic aspect of their job?!

[lechiffre55]

"I'm baffled by this because when you submit somwhere an editor will first review your paper to check it fits with the journal/isn't complete nonsense. Then it's passed to peer reviewers."

You are assuming what the process is, and that the process works as intended. There is evidence to the contrary.

[1blossomtree]

@lechiffre55

"I'm baffled by this because when you submit somwhere an editor will first review your paper to check it fits with the journal/isn't complete nonsense. Then it's passed to peer reviewers."

You are assuming what the process is, and that the process works as intended. There is evidence to the contrary.

Which peer-reviewed journals don't use this process?

[1blossomtree]

As I said.. "Changing procedures" would surely just meanmaking sure the editors for your journal aren't idiots/do a basic aspect of their job?!

[Fladdermus]

I assumed they mean putting in place extra checks and balances as it's quite clear that the current ones aren't enough.

[lechiffre55]

From Fladdermus "I know one journal editor, not connected with this in anyway, who is reviewing all their procedures to ensure nothing like this ever makes it through their door."
It says right there, "reviewing all their procedures to ensure nothing like this ever makes it through their door"
It could mean the previous assumptions that editors aren't idiots may be wrong and that a new process that can deal with some idiots needs to be put in place. It probably means more oversight and review by more and different sets of eyes before anything is published. In the specific example this thread is about there may be certain conditions under which protocol was not followed (e.g. too busy/not enough staff). The review Fladdermus is on about may decide I don't care how busy we are, proper procedure must be followed.
The intent and motive are clearly stated.

[MaryBlighthouse]

I don’t think this is a failure of processes. The paper was clearly about a man wanking to sexual images of young boys.

That paper got published because of a culture that has grown in academic humanities research, which means senior people in that field can no longer see that paper is utterly unacceptable, on multiple levels.

That is what needs addressing. That is what is disturbing. This is not a process issue, it’s a culture issue.

[RoyalCorgi]

Times Higher Education tend to stay away from gender politics, but even they have covered this:

www.timeshighereducation.com/news/manchester-investigates-phd-students-masturbation-paper

Good quote from Alice Sullivan: "“Wanking is not a research method; it is just wanking."

[DianeBrewster]

@MaryBlighthouse

I don’t think this is a failure of processes. The paper was clearly about a man wanking to sexual images of young boys.

That paper got published because of a culture that has grown in academic humanities research, which means senior people in that field can no longer see that paper is utterly unacceptable, on multiple levels.

That is what needs addressing. That is what is disturbing. This is not a process issue, it’s a culture issue.

I think you're right @MaryBlighthouse - queer studies has caused a real shift in the Overton window. It has normalised the abnormal/morally dubious in such a way that it can't be SEEN anymore by those who've absorbed it. 🤷‍♀️

[achillestoes]

‘Wanking is not a research method; it is just wanking.’

What a woman!

[nettie434]

Which peer-reviewed journals don't use this process?

Upthread I mentioned the grievance studies affair. This involved a group of academics writing articles based on obviously fake data and submitting them to various journals.

areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/

Clearly the editorial decision making and peer review process are less that optimal for some journals. The problem here is that - as Spartacus said, this is not a tin pot journal published by one person and their dog.

There are 2 separate concerns here. The first is the system in Manchester for enrolling and supervising PhD students. The second is the journal's own standards of integrity.

I agree with MaryBlighthouse that it looks more like a failure of culture which meant that processes designed to maintain academic integrity failed.

[1blossomtree]

@nettie434

Which peer-reviewed journals don't use this process?

Upthread I mentioned the grievance studies affair. This involved a group of academics writing articles based on obviously fake data and submitting them to various journals.

areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/

Clearly the editorial decision making and peer review process are less that optimal for some journals. The problem here is that - as Spartacus said, this is not a tin pot journal published by one person and their dog.

There are 2 separate concerns here. The first is the system in Manchester for enrolling and supervising PhD students. The second is the journal's own standards of integrity.

I agree with MaryBlighthouse that it looks more like a failure of culture which meant that processes designed to maintain academic integrity failed.

This entirely different @nettie434

Fraudulent studies are a huge problem in science & academia - and this is often missed in the review process. It depends how thorough a reviewer is actually being, whether they are pals with the PI etc.

However, this is not the case of a study being fraudulent or low quality.

It is obvious from the title and abstract that it is both illegal & methodologically unsound - this is something the editor should have realised on first glance. It's not something that was buried in the paper that a reviewer should have picked up but missed.

[BettyFilous]

@RoyalCorgi

Times Higher Education tend to stay away from gender politics, but even they have covered this:

www.timeshighereducation.com/news/manchester-investigates-phd-students-masturbation-paper

Good quote from Alice Sullivan: "“Wanking is not a research method; it is just wanking."

👏for Alice. I’d love to meet her in person. I commend her limited tolerance for bullshit & willingness to call it what it for it is.

[JaninaDuszejko]

Some research studies you hear off (‘do spiders dream’ or ‘how biscuits fall apart when dunked’) do have some ‘useful’ basis…

The biscuit dunking research was funded by a well known biscuit manufacturer, it's basically them creating a story to get some free advertising. It works well for the press who love this kind of thing (very much an 'and finally...' kind of story) and for the researcher (who gets paid well for a small study and might get a few press interviews). Bit of a win win situation really but definitely not serious research. That's different from the Ignoble awards which are for serious research that's a bit amusing at first sight.

[TheWeeDonkey]

@JaninaDuszejko

Some research studies you hear off (‘do spiders dream’ or ‘how biscuits fall apart when dunked’) do have some ‘useful’ basis…

The biscuit dunking research was funded by a well known biscuit manufacturer, it's basically them creating a story to get some free advertising. It works well for the press who love this kind of thing (very much an 'and finally...' kind of story) and for the researcher (who gets paid well for a small study and might get a few press interviews). Bit of a win win situation really but definitely not serious research. That's different from the Ignoble awards which are for serious research that's a bit amusing at first sight.

I mean, you say that, but theres nothing worse that having a biscuit fall apart in your tea. Can really put a downer on your day 😉

[MaryBlighthouse]

So do spider’s dream?

[FlibbertyGiblets]

www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/jumping-spiders-dream-rem-sleep-study-suggests

Do spiders dream? Possibly, yes!

[BettyFilous]

@FlibbertyGiblets

www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/jumping-spiders-dream-rem-sleep-study-suggests

Do spiders dream? Possibly, yes!

And this is why I love MN. 😁

[FlibbertyGiblets]

<bows and accepts applause>

[TheWeeDonkey]

@MaryBlighthouse

So do spider’s dream?

They dream about rubbing their willies on your laundry at night!

[MaryBlighthouse]

Thanks @FlibbertyGiblets : )

[PrimAndProperViperish]

the real gatekeepers here were the editorial board of Qualitative Research. Unusually for a high profile broad subject journal, they're all from a single university - Cardiff.

That's interesting.

So either we are dealing with people blinded by ideology to the po8bt they think that rules and the law don't apply to them or we're dealing with utter incompetence or we're dealing with something more sinister.

This journal should close, frankly.

[PrimAndProperViperish]

Publishing a paper that describes illegal activity legitimizes it. The journal and the supervisor are complicit.