The blog post "Please Commit More Blatant Academic Fraud" argues that the current academic system, particularly in humanities, incentivizes meaningless, formulaic writing that adheres to rigid stylistic and theoretical frameworks rather than genuine intellectual exploration. The author encourages students to subvert this system by embracing "blatant academic fraud"—not plagiarism or fabrication, but rather strategically utilizing sophisticated language and fashionable theories to create impressive-sounding yet ultimately hollow work. This act of performative scholarship is presented as a form of protest, exposing the absurdity of a system that values appearance over substance and rewards conformity over original thought. The author believes this "fraud" will force the academy to confront its own superficiality and hopefully lead to meaningful reform.
In a provocatively titled blog post, "Please Commit More Blatant Academic Fraud," author Jacob Buckman presents a nuanced argument not for literal academic dishonesty, but rather for a radical rethinking of how intellectual work is produced and assessed within academia. He posits that the current system, with its emphasis on rigorous citation, individual authorship, and the avoidance of plagiarism, stifles creativity and genuine intellectual exploration. Buckman argues that this system prioritizes form over substance, rewarding adherence to arbitrary rules rather than the generation of truly novel ideas. He contends that the fear of being accused of plagiarism inhibits students and scholars from engaging in the free exchange of ideas that is essential for intellectual growth.
Buckman elaborates on this by suggesting that the concept of individual ownership of ideas is a fallacy, arguing that all intellectual work builds upon a vast pre-existing network of knowledge and influences. He uses the analogy of a "great conversation," implying that academic discourse should be a collaborative and iterative process where ideas are freely shared, remixed, and built upon without the constraints of rigid attribution. He suggests that the current system, which emphasizes individual contribution and meticulous citation, discourages this type of open intellectual exchange and creates a climate of fear and anxiety around intellectual property.
Furthermore, Buckman criticizes the emphasis placed on formal citation practices. He argues that these practices, while ostensibly designed to prevent plagiarism, often serve to obscure the true lineage of ideas and create a false sense of originality. He suggests that a more honest approach would acknowledge the inherent interconnectedness of all intellectual work and embrace the collaborative nature of knowledge creation. He challenges the notion that meticulously citing every source somehow guarantees academic integrity, arguing that it often amounts to a performative ritual that distracts from the true substance of the work.
In essence, Buckman advocates for a more fluid and dynamic approach to academic scholarship, one that prioritizes the generation of new insights over strict adherence to conventional academic norms. He proposes that embracing a more open and collaborative model of intellectual exchange, even if it blurs the lines of traditional authorship and citation practices, would ultimately lead to a more vibrant and productive academic landscape. While acknowledging the potential for abuse, he believes the benefits of fostering a more open and collaborative intellectual environment outweigh the risks of increased plagiarism. He concludes by implicitly suggesting that the current system's obsession with preventing plagiarism may be hindering true intellectual progress.
Summary of Comments ( 1 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43123837
Hacker News users generally agree with the author's premise that the current academic publishing system is broken and incentivizes bad research practices. Many commenters share anecdotes of questionable research practices they've witnessed, including pressure to produce positive results, manipulating data, and salami slicing publications. Some highlight the perverse incentives created by the "publish or perish" environment, arguing that it pushes researchers towards quantity over quality. Several commenters discuss the potential benefits of open science practices and pre-registration as ways to improve transparency and rigor. There is also a thread discussing the role of reviewers and editors in perpetuating these problems, suggesting they often lack the time or expertise to thoroughly evaluate submissions. A few dissenting voices argue that while problems exist, blatant fraud is rare and the author's tone is overly cynical.
The Hacker News post titled "Please Commit More Blatant Academic Fraud" (linking to jacobbuckman.com/2021-05-29-please-commit-more-blatant-academic-fraud/) generated several comments discussing the article's premise and related issues.
Several commenters debated the ethics and practicality of the suggestions in the original article. One commenter argued that while exaggerating the significance of research might be common, outright fabrication is rare and easily detectable. They emphasized the collaborative nature of science, suggesting that fraudulent data would quickly be exposed when others tried to build upon it. Another commenter pushed back against this, claiming that fabricated research often goes unnoticed, citing personal anecdotes and examples of retractions happening years after publication. This sparked a side discussion on the efficacy of peer review and the pressures that can lead researchers to fabricate data.
The topic of "p-hacking" and questionable research practices arose in several comments. One commenter described the pressure to publish, especially in fields with limited funding, leading researchers to manipulate data or interpretations to achieve statistically significant results. Another commenter highlighted the issue of publication bias, where studies with positive results are more likely to be published, creating a skewed perception of the research landscape. This commenter suggested pre-registration of studies as a potential solution.
Another thread of discussion centered around the "publish or perish" culture in academia. Commenters discussed how this pressure can incentivize unethical behavior and discourage risky or novel research. One commenter argued that the focus on metrics like publication count and impact factor has created a system that rewards quantity over quality. Another commenter suggested alternative evaluation metrics, such as focusing on the reproducibility and practical impact of research.
A few commenters also discussed the role of funding sources and their potential influence on research outcomes. One commenter raised concerns about industry-funded research and the potential for bias towards results that benefit the funder. Another commenter argued that the current funding system is overly competitive and favors established researchers, making it difficult for younger scientists to pursue unconventional ideas.
Finally, some commenters offered more nuanced perspectives on the original article's suggestions. One commenter suggested that while blatant fraud is unacceptable, there's a gray area between outright fabrication and overselling research findings. They argued that some level of "marketing" is necessary to secure funding and attract attention to important work. Another commenter highlighted the importance of open science practices, such as sharing data and code, as a way to promote transparency and deter fraud.