The AI Files · Lindsay, Pluckrose, Boghossian, and the 2018 journal hoaxes (Sokal Squared) · plain reading edition
The Grievance Studies Affair: every entry
All 50 entries of the guide, grouped by period and case, each with its bottom line and its sources. This page needs no JavaScript. The interactive guide adds the story in 20 chapters, the people, the timeline, the theories, the 15 checked claims and the media.
Visual timeline
32 dated events
Precursor: Conceptual Penis 2017
Conceptual Penis
May–Aug 2017
The Conceptual Penis (2017)
Record · Documented
Labeled record card: The Conceptual Penis AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Lindsay and Boghossian’s first spoof argued that penises are social constructs that cause climate change.
In May 2017 James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian published “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” in *Cogent Social Sciences*, an open-access Taylor & Francis title. [1]
They later said the paper’s impact was limited and that legitimate criticism focused on the journal’s low standards and article-processing charges — muddying any claim about gender studies as such. [2]
That failure became a design constraint for the larger project: ranked journals only, and no pay-to-publish fees. [2]
Bottom line Documented
The precursor established motive and a negative lesson about venue quality — not a clean field-wide result.
What the record can’t settle
Cogent’s editorial quality is disputed terrain; withdrawing/retracting history should be checked at the publisher record when citing status.
Labeled record card: Twenty papers AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Ranked journals, no APCs, and admit a hoax if an editor asks.
The Areo essay states three rules meant to keep results inside the target fields rather than predatory publishing: focus on ranked peer-reviewed journals; do not pay to publish; if a journal editor or reviewer asks whether a paper is a hoax, admit it. [1]
Journalists were not included in the “admit” rule — a distinction that mattered when WSJ and others began identity checks. [1]
Helen Pluckrose joined in September 2017, expanding the writing team to three. [1]
Bottom line Documented
The rules are the authors’ own constraints; they do not by themselves prove field-wide corruption.
What the record can’t settle
Whether every submission in fact went to “top” journals is a matter of their list plus journal rankings — contested at the margins.
Labeled record card: Twenty papers AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
They described immersing in the dialect until absurd theses could pass as scholarship.
Areo calls the approach a reflexive ethnography: learn the literature, cite real sources, and use reviewer comments as data about the culture. [1]
Every paper started with an absurd or unethical conclusion and bent existing scholarship to support it — “sophistry,” in their word, because they knew they were forging knowledge. [1]
Critics later called the same method a politically motivated sting without controls. [2][3]
Labeled record card: Dog Park AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Gender, Place & Culture accepted and later celebrated the paper; fabricated dog-rape fieldwork.
Areo lists **Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity in Urban Dog Parks…** among the seven acceptances, with reviewer quotations the authors present as evidence that moral fashion outweighed rigor. [1]
Full drafts and review reports were archived by the authors for readers who want the primary paper text. [2]
Published pieces later faced expressions of concern, retraction, or withdrawal tracked by Retraction Watch and the journals. [3]
Bottom line Documented
Acceptance is documented in Areo plus journal records; the *meaning* of acceptance is the fight.
What the record can’t settle
Reviewer quotes are selected by the hoaxers; read full reports in their archive before treating any single line as the field’s voice.
Labeled record card: Fat Bodybuilding AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Fat Studies accepted a paper treating fat bodybuilding as a liberatory disruption.
Areo lists **Who Are They to Judge? … Fat Bodybuilding** among the seven acceptances, with reviewer quotations the authors present as evidence that moral fashion outweighed rigor. [1]
Full drafts and review reports were archived by the authors for readers who want the primary paper text. [2]
Published pieces later faced expressions of concern, retraction, or withdrawal tracked by Retraction Watch and the journals. [3]
Bottom line Documented
Acceptance is documented in Areo plus journal records; the *meaning* of acceptance is the fight.
What the record can’t settle
Reviewer quotes are selected by the hoaxers; read full reports in their archive before treating any single line as the field’s voice.
Labeled record card: Back Door paper AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Sexuality & Culture accepted claims that receptive anal toy use would reduce transphobia.
Areo lists **Going in Through the Back Door…** among the seven acceptances, with reviewer quotations the authors present as evidence that moral fashion outweighed rigor. [1]
Full drafts and review reports were archived by the authors for readers who want the primary paper text. [2]
Published pieces later faced expressions of concern, retraction, or withdrawal tracked by Retraction Watch and the journals. [3]
Bottom line Documented
Acceptance is documented in Areo plus journal records; the *meaning* of acceptance is the fight.
What the record can’t settle
Reviewer quotes are selected by the hoaxers; read full reports in their archive before treating any single line as the field’s voice.
Labeled record card: Breastaurant paper AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Sex Roles accepted a shoddy qualitative take on why men go to Hooters.
Areo lists **An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity…** among the seven acceptances, with reviewer quotations the authors present as evidence that moral fashion outweighed rigor. [1]
Full drafts and review reports were archived by the authors for readers who want the primary paper text. [2]
Published pieces later faced expressions of concern, retraction, or withdrawal tracked by Retraction Watch and the journals. [3]
Bottom line Documented
Acceptance is documented in Areo plus journal records; the *meaning* of acceptance is the fight.
What the record can’t settle
Reviewer quotes are selected by the hoaxers; read full reports in their archive before treating any single line as the field’s voice.
Labeled record card: Hoax on Hoaxes 2 AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Hypatia accepted a paper arguing that hoaxing social-justice scholarship is unethical privilege-preservation.
Areo lists **When the Joke Is on You…** among the seven acceptances, with reviewer quotations the authors present as evidence that moral fashion outweighed rigor. [1]
Full drafts and review reports were archived by the authors for readers who want the primary paper text. [2]
Published pieces later faced expressions of concern, retraction, or withdrawal tracked by Retraction Watch and the journals. [3]
Bottom line Documented
Acceptance is documented in Areo plus journal records; the *meaning* of acceptance is the fight.
What the record can’t settle
Reviewer quotes are selected by the hoaxers; read full reports in their archive before treating any single line as the field’s voice.
Labeled record card: Moon Meetings AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Journal of Poetry Therapy accepted a poetic autoethnography (Areo: partly angst-generator, written by Lindsay).
Areo lists **Moon Meetings and the Meaning of Sisterhood…** among the seven acceptances, with reviewer quotations the authors present as evidence that moral fashion outweighed rigor. [1]
Full drafts and review reports were archived by the authors for readers who want the primary paper text. [2]
Published pieces later faced expressions of concern, retraction, or withdrawal tracked by Retraction Watch and the journals. [3]
Bottom line Documented
Acceptance is documented in Areo plus journal records; the *meaning* of acceptance is the fight.
What the record can’t settle
Reviewer quotes are selected by the hoaxers; read full reports in their archive before treating any single line as the field’s voice.
Labeled record card: Feminist Mein Kampf rewrite AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Affilia accepted a solidarity-feminism paper the authors say reworked Mein Kampf chapter material with buzzwords.
Areo lists **Our Struggle is My Struggle…** among the seven acceptances, with reviewer quotations the authors present as evidence that moral fashion outweighed rigor. [1]
Full drafts and review reports were archived by the authors for readers who want the primary paper text. [2]
Published pieces later faced expressions of concern, retraction, or withdrawal tracked by Retraction Watch and the journals. [3]
Bottom line Documented
Acceptance is documented in Areo plus journal records; the *meaning* of acceptance is the fight.
What the record can’t settle
Reviewer quotes are selected by the hoaxers; read full reports in their archive before treating any single line as the field’s voice.
Labeled record card: Twenty papers AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
7 accepted (4 online), 7 still in play, 6 retired; 4 peer-review invitations declined.
Areo’s summary at the forced halt: seven acceptances (four published online, three accepted but not yet published); seven still in process; six retired as fatally flawed. [1]
They estimate that with more time “at least 10, probably 12” might have been accepted — an authors’ projection, not a completed result. [1]
They say they declined four invitations to peer-review others’ papers. [1]
Bottom line Documented
The completed acceptances are the hard count; the “would have been” numbers are speculative.
What the record can’t settle
Different secondary writeups sometimes blur “accepted” vs “published.” Prefer Areo’s table.
Labeled record card: Hoax on Hoaxes 2 AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
A pedagogy paper urged ranking students by privilege — including “experiential reparations.”
Areo describes multiple Reject-and-Resubmit decisions at Hypatia for a paper advocating discriminatory classroom practices framed as justice pedagogy. [1][2]
Authors highlight reviewer comments that called the project worthwhile even while demanding revision — used as evidence of moral orthodoxy. [1]
It was not among the seven acceptances at halt; it sits in the “still in play / R&R” story. [1]
Bottom line Mixed
Important for the ethics debate even without final acceptance.
What the record can’t settle
R&R is not acceptance; critics note many fields revise aggressively.
Labeled record card: Dog Park AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Real Peer Review and journalists could not find Helen Wilson or PURI.
Near the end of July 2018, Areo says Real Peer Review amplified Dog Park; reporters found no credible Helen Wilson or Portland Ungendering Research Initiative. [1][3]
Gender, Place & Culture asked for proof of identity and issued an expression of concern. [2][1]
The authors argue that once major outlets and journals demanded identity proof, continuing deception became ethically untenable. [1]
Bottom line Documented
The blowup path is well documented; it truncated the experiment.
What the record can’t settle
Social-media amplification is not peer review; it was a discovery mechanism.
Labeled record card: Areo methods dump AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
The definitive primary dump of methods, papers, and reviewer excerpts.
On 3 October 2018 Areo published “Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship,” listing every paper and selected reviews. [1]
The essay argues that critical constructivism / “grievance studies” put social grievances ahead of truth and that peer review in those fields reinforced bias. [1]
It also tries to pre-empt right-wing overread: most scholarship is sound; the problem is specific fields. [1]
Bottom line Documented
Primary spine for what the authors claim they did and found.
What the record can’t settle
It is advocacy plus methods — not a registered, controlled experiment writeup.
Labeled record card: EoCs & retractions AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Some defenders stress that fabricated datasets, not theory alone, explain acceptances.
Secondary summaries note that accepting journals later emphasized falsified data as distorting review. (See Wikipedia’s synthesis pointing at editors’ statements; prefer journal notices.) [2]
Areo itself admits shoddy methods and implausible statistics were features of several papers. [1]
Rival path: if data fraud drove accepts, the lesson is research integrity, not “grievance” epistemology. [3]
Bottom line Disputed
Both “ideology” and “fake data” can be true together; weight is contested.
What the record can’t settle
Not every accepted paper hinged on quantitative fake data (e.g., poetic Moon Meetings).
Labeled record card: PSU IRB finding AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
December 2018 finding: research on editors/reviewers without prior IRB approval.
Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle report PSU’s IRB concluded the project met federal definitions of research and human subjects — the subjects being journal editors and reviewers deceived by the submissions. [1][2]
Areo reprints the board’s appreciation that the work was “systematic” and aimed at generalizable knowledge — which the authors spin as accidental legitimacy. [3]
Chronicle reporting describes no plagiarism/fabrication finding in the sense of ordinary research misconduct categories, alongside the human-subjects violation. [2]
Bottom line Documented
The human-subjects finding is the institutional hard fact; its moral meaning splits camps.
What the record can’t settle
IRB letters themselves are partly mediated through Areo and press, not a full public docket.
Peter Boghossian TAM 2013 (9326703388) (cropped).jpg zooterkin · CC BY-SA 2.0
Resignation letter describes a 2016–17 investigation ending in insufficient evidence plus “coaching.”
Boghossian’s resignation letter says a former student’s complaint triggered Title IX processes he could not fully contest under confidentiality rules. [1][2]
He quotes a December 2017 finding of insufficient evidence and a recommendation of coaching, plus speech restrictions about “protected classes.” [1]
OPB repeats the claim in mainstream paraphrase; PSU did not litigate the details publicly. [3]
Bottom line Mixed
On the record as his testimony; not independently adjudicated here.
What the record can’t settle
University confidentiality means the complaint file is opaque — rate mixed.
Peter Boghossian TAM 2013 (9326703388) (cropped).jpg zooterkin · CC BY-SA 2.0
September 8, 2021 letter: illiberal campus, harassment, IRB retaliation narrative.
The letter to Provost Susan Jeffords resigns his assistant professorship and narrates Title IX, Conceptual Penis, Grievance Studies, bathroom harassment claims, and disrupted events. [1]
OPB quotes PSU’s general defense of free speech/academic freedom and notes the university would not discuss personnel matters. [2][3]
Whether resignation “proves” institutional capture is a theory question — the letter is primary for his reasons. [1]
Bottom line Documented
Primary exit document; contested as diagnosis of PSU as a whole.
What the record can’t settle
Harassment claims are his testimony; criminal outcomes are not shown here.
Labeled record card: Areo methods dump AI Files labeled document card · Public domain (generated label card)
Seven shoddy papers in ranked venues, plus glowing reviews, show a moral orthodoxy problem.
Steel-man: when Dog Park can be honored and a Mein Kampf rewrite can clear feminist social work review, something is wrong beyond one bad editor. [1][2]
Reviewer demands often pushed papers toward more ideology, not less — if the archive quotes hold. [1]
Authors claim they could have continued indefinitely, polluting the literature. [1]
Bottom line Disputed
Best version of the authors’ epistemic claim.
What the record can’t settle
Still lacks a control set of papers sent to other fields.
