Journal of Controversial Ideas

[Wahoo Redux]

I dunno, these are kind of interesting articles.  I'm intrigued.  The couple I've looked at are well-written and do indeed take on subjects that would be perilous for academics (or anyone, really) to blog or publish, if they could even find a publisher.

The world would have to give this some time to see how it develops.

It is so not surprising that Marshy posted this link.  In fact, Marshy, I think this is made to order for you.  If you do publish here, use a pseudonym or everyone who regularly reads The Fora will know who you are.

If I were a researcher, I'd keep that in mind. (I found out about it on Quillette, as someone mentioned upthread.)

It will be interesting to see what happens if an article on there published under a pseudonym blows up. I predict a whole bunch of academics will rant about the use of a pseudonym, (rather than presenting a proper article refuting it), and some may go as far as to try and figure out the author to cancel them in the manner the journal is trying to prevent.

Maybe.  I doubt it will get enough traffic.  The cancel explosions usually occur because someone publishes in the popular press or hits social media.  The instances such as the Hypatia controversy are tempests in teakettles. 

[marshwiggle]

I dunno, these are kind of interesting articles.  I'm intrigued.  The couple I've looked at are well-written and do indeed take on subjects that would be perilous for academics (or anyone, really) to blog or publish, if they could even find a publisher.

The world would have to give this some time to see how it develops.

It is so not surprising that Marshy posted this link.  In fact, Marshy, I think this is made to order for you.  If you do publish here, use a pseudonym or everyone who regularly reads The Fora will know who you are.

If I were a researcher, I'd keep that in mind. (I found out about it on Quillette, as someone mentioned upthread.)

It will be interesting to see what happens if an article on there published under a pseudonym blows up. I predict a whole bunch of academics will rant about the use of a pseudonym, (rather than presenting a proper article refuting it), and some may go as far as to try and figure out the author to cancel them in the manner the journal is trying to prevent.

Maybe.  I doubt it will get enough traffic.  The cancel explosions usually occur because someone publishes in the popular press or hits social media.  The instances such as the Hypatia controversy are tempests in teakettles.

Tell that to Rebecca Tuvel. Young researchers without tenure could have their careers destroyed over one of those "tempests in teakettles".

[mahagonny]

Is this a vanity publication?

No, it's peer reviewed.

Remember the Hypatia controversy from 2017?

That was a serious threat to the career of Rebecca Tuvel. That's the kind of thing this journal potentially protects against.

So, does this journal exist to compensate for a deficit in tenure (protecting those who will never be tenured), to protect those who do not yet have tenure, to compensate for tenure not protecting people as much as they need, or as a place for people who already have plenty of protection to hide because they feel like it?

[Parasaurolophus]

Tell that to Rebecca Tuvel. Young researchers without tenure could have their careers destroyed over one of those "tempests in teakettles".

While I agree that she was severely mistreated, it's important to note that her career was not destroyed (unlike, e.g., Salaita). The article was not retracted, and she got tenured despite it all. She ultimately got a free pub out of the deal (a reply piece in a pretty godawful symposium on her paper), and it looks like it's grounded a monograph she's got forthcoming with Routledge. She was a nobody before, and now she's a household name in philosophy (and elsewhere).

To be clear, that's not to condone what happened to her. It never should have happened. But it clearly did not destroy her career, even though she was going up for tenure.

So, does this journal exist to compensate for a deficit in tenure (protecting those who will never be tenured), to protect those who do not yet have tenure, to compensate for tenure not protecting people as much as they need, or as a place for people who already have plenty of protection to hide because they feel like it?

I think you're right.

[marshwiggle]

Tell that to Rebecca Tuvel. Young researchers without tenure could have their careers destroyed over one of those "tempests in teakettles".

While I agree that she was severely mistreated, it's important to note that her career was not destroyed (unlike, e.g., Salaita). The article was not retracted, and she got tenured despite it all. She ultimately got a free pub out of the deal (a reply piece in a pretty godawful symposium on her paper), and it looks like it's grounded a monograph she's got forthcoming with Routledge. She was a nobody before, and now she's a household name in philosophy (and elsewhere).

To be clear, that's not to condone what happened to her. It never should have happened. But it clearly did not destroy her career, even though she was going up for tenure.

The thing is, as the editors point out, how many people having seen her story will avoid certain topics in the first place? That's the most chilling aspect of the whole thing; that certain topics will simply become too dangerous to consider.

If a journal like this allows people to feel safe enough to pursue what interests them, then it's doing a service. (And, as they indicate, those "dangerous" topics can be anywhere on the political spectrum.)

[Sun_Worshiper]

I guess the innovation here is that you can publish under a pseudonym? Otherwise why do we need this when there are already other journals that are happy to publish controversial ideas (e.g. Academic Questions, which published the Gilley article on Colonialism after Third World Quarterly retracted it)? If this really is the only journal that lets one publish under a pseudonym, then it could give pre-tenure folks a way to publish their controversial articles anonymously without drawing attention to themselves at tenure time, but that seems like a misuse of time for anyone other than a superstar that is well over the tenure bar anyway. And a piece published here is unlikely to get any attention since the journal is positioning itself as an outlet for fringe ideas.

I'd also like to know how many academics are really persecuted for their controversial ideas. Marsh keeps mentioning this Tuvel article, but that piece was not retracted and she got tenure. Ditto for the Mark Regnerus article on same sex marriage (he even published a second article in the same journal defending it). The only example that comes to mind is when Norm Finkelstein was denied by DePaul, after Alan Dershowitz intervened to torpedo the case.

[mahagonny]

So, does this journal exist to compensate for a deficit in tenure (protecting those who will never be tenured), to protect those who do not yet have tenure, to compensate for tenure not protecting people as much as they need, or as a place for people who already have plenty of protection to hide because they feel like it?

I think you're right.

One should be willing to put one's name on it to give it the fullest impact. For example Jordan Peterson was getting beat up pretty roundly before his interview with Cathy Newman. Now he's rocking...'dangerous.' Of course it didn't hurt that she was so shallow it was easy for him to dominate and still play gentleman.
I'm not a researcher in my field. Practitioner, working creative artist. Not a producer of new knowledge, but a 'consuming' researcher. It's hard to have tons of respect for people who enjoy their tenure status and all its material rewards (cue: 'WTF? I'm underpaid!!) and then won't back up their work with their name. Of course, I wouldn't know who it is I'm not respecting.

[marshwiggle]

I guess the innovation here is that you can publish under a pseudonym? Otherwise why do we need this when there are already other journals that are happy to publish controversial ideas (e.g. Academic Questions, which published the Gilley article on Colonialism after Third World Quarterly retracted it)?

If the effect of this journal is just to shame other journals into not retracting articles that they have published following all of their procedures, then it will have value.

If this really is the only journal that lets one publish under a pseudonym, then it could give pre-tenure folks a way to publish their controversial articles anonymously without drawing attention to themselves at tenure time, but that seems like a misuse of time for anyone other than a superstar that is well over the tenure bar anyway. And a piece published here is unlikely to get any attention since the journal is positioning itself as an outlet for fringe ideas.

Pretty much any paradigm shift in the history of science was a "fringe idea" when  it came out. If journals only publish what is "mainstream", then they're pointless.

I'd also like to know how many academics are really persecuted for their controversial ideas. Marsh keeps mentioning this Tuvel article, but that piece was not retracted and she got tenure. Ditto for the Mark Regnerus article on same sex marriage (he even published a second article in the same journal defending it). The only example that comes to mind is when Norm Finkelstein was denied by DePaul, after Alan Dershowitz intervened to torpedo the case.

To repeat what I said above, if this just highlights how gutless some journals have become in allowing themselves to be cowed into submission, then it will be worthwhile.

[dismalist]

Pretty much any paradigm shift in the history of science was a "fringe idea" when  it came out. If journals only publish what is "mainstream", then they're pointless.

A lovely very recent example is George Akerlof's analysis of the consequences of asymmetric information. His idea was published as "The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism", referring to the used car market, in 1970.

It had been rejected by three journals, two claiming they didn't publish papers on frivolous topics like the used car market, and one claiming the paper was wrong.

The ideas almost completely remade Development Economics, some of Finance, and too many other subjects to mention.

Akerlof won the Noble Prize in 2001.

If competition among journals is very intense perhaps we needn't worry about this too much, but that a Journal of Controversial Ideas appears suggests that competition among journals in the relevant fields is not intense.

[Wahoo Redux]

I guess the innovation here is that you can publish under a pseudonym?... a piece published here is unlikely to get any attention since the journal is positioning itself as an outlet for fringe ideas.

I imagine it's for the same reasons we use pseudonyms here.  People say all sorts of things about their colleagues and colleges which might not get them fired (or might, actually) but would go over poorly in their real-world lives.

[lightning]

I don't get it. What's the point in publishing with a pseudonym? I get it--to protect the author, but how in the heck is an author supposed to claim their article as a publication, if their name is not on the paper.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't get it. What's the point in publishing with a pseudonym? I get it--to protect the author, but how in the heck is an author supposed to claim their article as a publication, if their name is not on the paper.

Maybe there are other reasons for publishing a controversial idea than a CV line.

Ivar Hardman is advocating for "direct action," violence in other words, to protect laboratory animals.  I don't think that is fodder for tenure or promotion, but it is probably an idea Ivar really believes in.

If someone takes Ivar's advice to heart, The Journal may have a lawsuit on their hands. 

[marshwiggle]

I don't get it. What's the point in publishing with a pseudonym? I get it--to protect the author, but how in the heck is an author supposed to claim their article as a publication, if their name is not on the paper.

Maybe because they think it's important and true, even if it doesn't help them climb the career ladder. (But won't get them fired, since they're using a pseudonym.)

[Sun_Worshiper]

I guess the innovation here is that you can publish under a pseudonym? Otherwise why do we need this when there are already other journals that are happy to publish controversial ideas (e.g. Academic Questions, which published the Gilley article on Colonialism after Third World Quarterly retracted it)?

If the effect of this journal is just to shame other journals into not retracting articles that they have published following all of their procedures, then it will have value.

If this really is the only journal that lets one publish under a pseudonym, then it could give pre-tenure folks a way to publish their controversial articles anonymously without drawing attention to themselves at tenure time, but that seems like a misuse of time for anyone other than a superstar that is well over the tenure bar anyway. And a piece published here is unlikely to get any attention since the journal is positioning itself as an outlet for fringe ideas.

Pretty much any paradigm shift in the history of science was a "fringe idea" when  it came out. If journals only publish what is "mainstream", then they're pointless.

I'd also like to know how many academics are really persecuted for their controversial ideas. Marsh keeps mentioning this Tuvel article, but that piece was not retracted and she got tenure. Ditto for the Mark Regnerus article on same sex marriage (he even published a second article in the same journal defending it). The only example that comes to mind is when Norm Finkelstein was denied by DePaul, after Alan Dershowitz intervened to torpedo the case.

To repeat what I said above, if this just highlights how gutless some journals have become in allowing themselves to be cowed into submission, then it will be worthwhile.

Except there is no shortage of established journals that will publish controversial ideas.

Pretty much any paradigm shift in the history of science was a "fringe idea" when  it came out. If journals only publish what is "mainstream", then they're pointless.

A lovely very recent example is George Akerlof's analysis of the consequences of asymmetric information. His idea was published as "The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism", referring to the used car market, in 1970.

It had been rejected by three journals, two claiming they didn't publish papers on frivolous topics like the used car market, and one claiming the paper was wrong.

The ideas almost completely remade Development Economics, some of Finance, and too many other subjects to mention.

Akerlof won the Noble Prize in 2001.

If competition among journals is very intense perhaps we needn't worry about this too much, but that a Journal of Controversial Ideas appears suggests that competition among journals in the relevant fields is not intense.

Akerlof article was published in QJE, which is one of the top five econ journals, so he was not actually shut out of the top tier because of his controversial or frivolous ideas.

[lightning]

I don't get it. What's the point in publishing with a pseudonym? I get it--to protect the author, but how in the heck is an author supposed to claim their article as a publication, if their name is not on the paper.

Maybe there are other reasons for publishing a controversial idea than a CV line.

Ivar Hardman is advocating for "direct action," violence in other words, to protect laboratory animals.  I don't think that is fodder for tenure or promotion, but it is probably an idea Ivar really believes in.

If someone takes Ivar's advice to heart, The Journal may have a lawsuit on their hands. 

I don't get it. What's the point in publishing with a pseudonym? I get it--to protect the author, but how in the heck is an author supposed to claim their article as a publication, if their name is not on the paper.

Maybe there are other reasons for publishing a controversial idea than a CV line.

Ivar Hardman is advocating for "direct action," violence in other words, to protect laboratory animals.  I don't think that is fodder for tenure or promotion, but it is probably an idea Ivar really believes in.

If someone takes Ivar's advice to heart, The Journal may have a lawsuit on their hands.

I get all that, but publishing an anonymous article in a journal that frames all the articles in the journal as "controversial" does not do much to advance the anonymous authors' causes, because suspicion is already cast on the articles, just from the journal name. Furthermore, search engines are really lousy at returning journal articles to a user's search. If the motivation is to publish anonymously in a "controversial" journal in order to advance a cause/truth that the author is passionately concerned about, then they are better off with publishing their thoughts in a wordpress blog, IMO.

I suppose the Ivar Hardman article is an article that truly needs this journal, but I fear that some of the other articles are only finding a home in this journal because they can't get published otherwise. And, some of the articles really are not controversial.

Maybe interests would be better served with a journal called
Journal of Inconvenient, Unpopular, and Threatening Ideas
--the journal for ideas that will not get published elsewhere because they could be viewed as threats to established academic power dynamics