You're listening to serious inquiries only. Oh, Hello and I'm your host Thomas Smith

Today I've got for you a conversation with Matthew Fasciani and Jeremiah Traeger and what we're going to be talking about has to do with publishing in

academia it's something that branched off a bit from the Gender Studies

hoax paper when that happened I had a lot of people in academia, PhDs left and right, it was pretty cool,

emailing me and saying, hey, here's how this works and not having gone to grad school, that's

really cool, I didn't know how it worked so branching off from that a

little bit we're gonna talk about how publishing in academia works in these journals

how peer review should work and then also a lot of the pressures that are inherent to the current

system and a lot of the problems that come from that.

So it's a really interesting topic.

It gives us kind of both more perspective on the gender studies hoax but also reaching beyond that gives us a bigger view of what's going on in academia and some of the challenges. So with that said, let's go over to Matthew Fasciani and Jeremiah Traeger. You guys are here to talk about the problems with publishing in academia, right?

Yeah, I reached out to you because there's sort of a culture that sort of it enables this type of thing to get out there

there's a big publisher parish mentality so I just ran it by you and Haley and it seemed like

something you were interested in so yeah definitely i'm i'm a graduate student in engineering which still is kind of like when you're a grad student in engineering it's still like science

but I know Matthew has more experience in like social sciences like what the

what the penis hoax was into.

So there's no, there hasn't been any engineering penis hoaxes that you know of you're saying.

No, but one thing I want to emphasize is like when you when you get into academia and you're reading papers and I'm not making a false equivalence here like pretty much every paper you read you look and you're like,

okay, there's a problem here and there's a problem there.

And that doesn't invalidate like any given paper.

There's still good stuff to take out of most things, some things are worse than others, and it's sort of the aggregation of like all the data that sort of builds consensus.

So, you know, one paper for me is not the biggest deal.

...