OK here is my take on the 'grievance studies hoax.' I think it shows that generally poorly reasoned, largely unfalsifiable papers with apparently absurd conclusions can get published in top journals in critical-studies-type fields. Fair enough. But it does NOT show a special ...

... kind of 'deep corruption' in such fields as compared to many other fields the hoax authors presumably regard as more 'reason and evidence based' or 'less ideological/political' (e.g., medicine? experimental psychology?). A whole thrust of the "replication crisis" in ...

... psychology, for example, has been that (a) seemingly absurd claims based on (b) insufficiently robust evidence to support such claims can get regularly published in (c) top journals (including Science! and Nature!), insofar as authors 'play the game' of the dominant ...

perspectives/ideologies/dogmas in those fields (see, e.g., "The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science" https://t.co/6IpRC3RGYt). To illustrate, the statistical ritual of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (https://t.co/sFK5omcEtk) has effectively been a publication ...

criterion in, not only psychology, but MANY 'more serious' scientific fields for decades, despite the fact that the way it's characteristically been (mindlessly) used has been as a kind of statistical magic that produces loads of nonsense 'findings' that are just noise ...