4

A current question here reminded me on the Sokal affair/hoax initiated by physicist Alan Sokal in 1996 by publishing a nonsense article in an social journal. I am wondering whether this triggered any major changes of the peer-review practices among journals or new categories of peer review (number of reviewers, can read review of other reviewer, reviewer suggested by author, etc....)

Reading the wiki article I could not see which type of peer review (single, double-blind,...) was applied by the journal Social Text at this time. The wiki article also suggests to me that the problem was maybe rather the choice of the reviewers (no physicists, although physics is "somehow" a topic of this article).

closed as unclear what you're asking by Federico Poloni, corey979, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Flyto, FuzzyLeapfrog Feb 25 at 12:21

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    I removed your sidenote questions since we prefer to have only one question per question. Feel free to ask them separately, but if you do, please clarify “the type of review system applied by a journal […] is more important and put more weight on by the editors”. I fail to make sense of this since the editors do not choose the journal. – Wrzlprmft Feb 21 at 18:26
  • 3
    The linked wiki page says At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist. – StrongBad Feb 21 at 18:26
  • @StrongBad which I don't believe quite and I'm in general skeptical on wikipedia articles, otherwise why should have Sokal send the hoax, if he knew this. Some kind of review probably was in place which he wanted to disprove? But this doesn't change the title question... – user847982 Feb 21 at 18:30
  • 5
    @MichaelSchmidt A big part of Sokal's point was to show that, in spite of Social Text being considered a top journal, it did not have meaningful standards of review. The editors actually did ask him to revise and improve the article, but they did not understand it enough to recognize that it was entirely nonsense. Moreover, when Sokal refused to make changes, the editors decided that it was more valuable to have a physicist's participation than to have the article's writing made more comprehensible. – Buzz Feb 21 at 18:34
  • 1
    Reviewer reports and author responses can be openly available, which is called open peer-review. There is open single blind peer-review, e.g. the publisher Copernicus uses this type. – FuzzyLeapfrog Feb 21 at 19:11