The Curious Case of Academic Hoaxes

Hoaxes have been around for a long time, even in the world of academic studies. Academics and experts often think of themselves as smart, which makes them targets for tricky hoaxes. One classic example is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, who was tricked by fake photos of fairies. It is quite amusing to think about a brilliant writer being fooled like that!

What happens when an expert is tricked? If they announce the hoax as real, it can spread widely as people trust the expert's word. Some big examples of academic hoaxes include the Piltdown man hoax, where fake human fossils were presented as real, and Project Alpha, where fake psychics were used to catch out some researchers.

Interestingly, it's not common for academics to pull off hoaxes themselves. One famous case is Alan Sokal, who published a ridiculous paper to poke fun at the way some academics write. This case got a lot of attention and set a model for others to follow. Since then, more academic hoaxes have popped up, showing a pattern over the years. This article will look at the larger pattern of these hoaxes, including both known ones and newer cases that appeared on social media but haven't been discussed in academic circles.

#Why Study Hoaxes?

So why should we care about hoaxes? First off, they can cause harm. Many discussions focus on how they damage trust in academia. But hoaxes can also harm real journals that just don’t have much funding or experience. It’s a sad fact that hoaxes can hurt innocent parties.

Secondly, when people are tricked by hoaxes, they often want to hide the fact that they were fooled. Those behind the hoaxes might also downplay their actions, especially if the hoaxes stir up controversy. Studying hoaxes offers a record of what happened, which is important for holding people accountable.

For our purpose, we define a hoax as the act of creating and sharing false information that the creator knows is untrue. However, they hope that with enough care, people might catch on to the deception. If someone creates false information and doesn’t expect it to be discovered, that’s more about making stuff up than a true hoax. The intention behind the act is what matters.

Some cases that scholars labeled as "irony" may also fit into the humor category. The authors behind these can sometimes write things that others may take seriously when they weren't meant to be. When someone tells a joke about a duck walking into a bar, they don't really expect anyone to think that ducks can talk!

#Gathering Hoaxes

The study collected hoaxes from July 2017 to June 2020. This period may not cover every hoax in academia, but it aims to represent patterns over time. We focused on hoaxes that were made after the year 2000, aimed at academic places, accepted for publication, and later revealed as false.

For instance, if someone submitted hundreds of fake articles to various journals, that was counted as one hoax. Articles where the authors didn't intend to fool anyone were left out. For example, one study that was clearly a joke didn’t make the cut since everyone involved was aware it was funny.

In terms of research methods, the text of each hoax was collected, along with any announcements revealing the truth. An analysis examined how clear the hoaxes were in terms of their content. Readability scores were used to see if complex writing tricked reviewers into thinking something was good when it wasn't. Some hoaxes were excluded from this readability test because they were written in German or didn’t follow normal structures.

#The Hoax Landscape

A total of 27 hoaxes were gathered. It was found that the frequency of these hoaxes increased over time. Between 2009 and 2012, there was only one hoax each year. However, from 2013 to 2018, the number jumped to multiple hoaxes per year.

Among these hoaxes, the most common form was fake journal articles, making up 85.2% of the total. The remaining 14.8% included fake conference abstracts, a false biography, and a fake journal. Interestingly, most of the hoaxes (77.8%) were made by academics, while some (22.2%) were crafted by journalists looking into publishing practices.

Some of the hoax creators had made multiple hoaxes before, showing that some individuals really enjoyed testing the limits of academia. Most of the hoaxes aimed to shed light on Predatory Journals-those that publish without proper quality checks. A few hoaxers mentioned receiving spam emails as a reason for their hoaxes, wanting to expose how these journals seemed to accept anything for a fee.

#The Humorous Side of Hoaxes

Hoaxes can often take a funny turn. They can include clever pop culture references or use ridiculous titles. Some papers even had profanity or humorous references to body parts. After all, academics have a sense of humor too!

These hoaxes were often revealed online, with many being discussed in blogs or social media before traditional news outlets picked them up. About 40% of hoaxes had articles assigned digital object identifiers (DOIs), which are meant to help locate academic work. However, many of these DOIs led either to error messages or were removed from the internet altogether.

#Two Main Types of Hoaxes

The academic hoaxes fit into two main categories: those exposing bad practices in science and those pointing fingers at the humanities for poor scholarship. The first type of hoaxes were a reaction to the rise of open access in academic publishing. This model inspired various shady journals to pop up, some of which accepted fake submissions.

The second type of hoax was meant to critique entire fields of study in the humanities. Instead of targeting specific predatory journals, these hoaxes usually aimed at established publications. The Sokal hoax inspired many of these efforts, but the goals were not always the same. While STEM hoaxers only wanted to reveal flawed publishing practices, the humanities hoaxers often had larger statements to make about their fields.

#The Future of Hoaxes

Both types of hoaxes raise concerns. Hoaxes are false by design, and they can erode trust in academia. However, they also reveal important insights that criticism alone might miss. They can show how poorly some journals operate and highlight that some might even waive fees or run checks for plagiarism.

As academia evolves, hoaxes are likely to stay part of the scene. As more journals arise and the number of researchers grows, it will continue to be hard for academics to keep track of who runs what. Trust becomes a rare commodity.

For journals that are serious about quality, they could even use the idea of surprise submissions of silly articles to check their standards. Just like restaurants undergo surprise inspections, academic journals might benefit from similar practices. This could create a clearer picture of how well journals are maintaining their promises about quality.

In conclusion, hoaxes have a curious place in academic publishing. While they can be tricky, they serve to spotlight issues that might otherwise go unnoticed. So, while hoaxes can elicit a laugh, they can also prompt deeper discussions about quality and accountability in academic publishing, keeping everyone on their toes.