[eduah]

> Publishing in a magazine that’s not peer reviewed doesn’t matter if they’re reporting on their research

This framing should tell you the bad faith in which the statement is being made. The authors didn't call it a research, critics rightly pointed out that it wasn't an academic research when they first revealed the hoax, and that nobody should take it seriously. Now that it is convenient to attack them by saying otherwise, now all of the sudden it is an academic research

[theoh]

The Areo article starts with "This essay, although hopefully accessible to everyone, is the most thorough breakdown of the study".

Those words "the study" clearly seek to frame the hoax as part of a research project or "study".

I like the expert opinion quoted in the NY Magazine article that basically says, "yes, this disciplinary action is politically motivated, but it's also entirely legitimate".

It seems like that is often the way the world works—there are many more possible, legitimate, prosecutions than are actually pursued. The choice of which to pursue can be made in unfair ways. Often it is used to reinforce corrupt systems.

In this case, there isn't any visible corruption. Nobody entrapped Boghossian, nobody appears to have had it in for him in advance. He walked into this.