I think that what this little exercise demonstrates, is that in some of the more politicized academic subjects anything will likely be accepted for publication in the journals, provided only that the paper's politics are perceived to be correct. Which arguably does tell us something about the academic standards of the subjects in question. — yazata

As I said above, you're aptly showing the people pushing this are the ones out to make a political point and skew things through the lens of their own biases. Poor academic material happens in every field, yes including outright fraud, and happens even in major journals (some of the things that have made it into Nature ...). There are many people who actively try to get such fraudulent material into journals of test them, and with the publish-or-perish culture in academia, it's completely expected that some amount of it gets through.

But you an OP don't infer you, you make it out to be an overtly political problem and thus you look foolish to anyone who keeps an eye on Retraction Watch and who is in academia. See my last post for a link showing how in Computer Science some guys were able to develop a bot that got hundreds of fake papers on nonsense into CS journals. Is that proof Computer Science will accept anything "provided the paper's politics are perceived to be correct"? But what I suspect you will answer is that CS isn't politicized while feminist philosophy is (meaning: it's not your politics) and so you don't care about the politics there to the extent that you'll ever mention it. This isn't about the junk being published, you just don't care for the discipline is my guess.

As I said, these complaints are always more telling about the person's own politics and biases than it is about the general quality of the paper.

See my last post for a link showing how in Computer Science some guys were able to develop a bot that got hundreds of fake papers on nonsense into CS journals. Is that proof Computer Science will accept anything "provided the paper's politics are perceived to be correct"? — MindForged

What it shows is that Computer Science journals also have lax publishing requirements or standards. Hence basically this is a question of a general problem in the World of Academia. Hence just to sideline the success of getting nonsense published as a politically motivated hitjob to certain disciplines doesn't refute the facts. Of course some might (and will) use it to push their political views and/or agenda, but the basic fact still is there. The layman just can notice the absurdity of a statement like "dog parks are petri dishes for canine ‘rape culture’", but have difficulties to understand total nonsense in CS journals... as even an exceptionally good and informative article can look like jibberish to the ordinary person.

The Peer review system should work, but obviously in todays academic life has it's problems. And perhaps the reason is that the whole academia has indeed become such a massive industry that high standards simply cannot be maintained everywhere.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/bogus-homeopathy-data-published-in-top-journal-sparks-outcry-facepalms/

"Editors at a respected scientific journal are reconsidering their decision to publish a study, which claims that a homeopathic dilution of poison oak can reduce pain in rats, after online critics pointed out that the study is rife with bogus, sloppy, and low-quality data. The study—titled “Ultra-diluted Toxicodendron pubescens attenuates pro-inflammatory cytokines and ROS-mediated neuropathic pain in rats”—was published September 10 in Scientific Reports, an open-access journal run by the Nature Publishing Group".

Better shut down science before its too late.

Here's a good discussion about the topic with the perpetrat..., sorry, the authors of the bogus articles . And their video about what they did basically filmed when they did it.

Do the various practitioners of the aptly named GRIEVANCE STUDIES deserve this fraud? Is this fraud unethical? — Bitter Crank

Yes to the first question, and no, it's not unethical in my view. What's unethical in my view is to be an apologist for bullshit, for gobbledygook. If they can be fooled by nonsense, it's a valuable thing to fool them and let it be known that they were fooled. Maybe that will teach them to be more critical, more intellectually honest.

. If they can be fooled by nonsense, it's a valuable thing to fool them and let it be known that they were fooled. Maybe that will teach them to be more critical, more intellectually honest. — Terrapin Station

Or maybe they just to close their ranks even more and become even more dedicated to "the cause".

You see, there is the option of seeing this as an evil deliberate hit job from the ever present and very powerful patriarchy. The fact that you are indeed right, indeed rigorous, and totally spot, which in itself has been the cause of this mudslinging and mockery!

This option works just fine. Just look at the popularity of the Flat-Earthers.

Do the various practitioners of the aptly named GRIEVANCE STUDIES deserve this fraud? Is this fraud unethical?

Discuss savagely like dogs fighting over a bone at Hooters. — Bitter Crank

I don't see this as fraud. Fraud would entail falsification of data or results that would deceive those critically evaluating the information. If I say something that prima facie is nonsense, I should be immediately recognized for my bullshit by those charged with critically evaluating my claims. If you create a system that has no objective standard for critical evaluation and that results in bullshit getting through your filterless system, the problem rests with your system.

That is to say, if my dog applies to your university and you allow Fido in because you've eliminated all objective admissions standards, you can hardly complain when cats and dogs get into your university and you look foolish. Such is critically different from me falsifying my transcripts and admissions scores and gaining admission. The latter is fraud. The former is just proof your institution has lost its way.