Introduction

Academic hoaxes—deliberately disseminating false information to test or expose flaws in scholarly systems—have a long and multifaceted history. Beyond their surface entertainment value, these hoaxes serve as critical tools for evaluating the integrity of academic systems, often laying bare systemic vulnerabilities and prompting debates on accountability and trust within scholarly ecosystems (Faulkes, 2024). From the Piltdown Man hoax to Alan Sokal’s satirical critique of postmodernist journals, hoaxes have illuminated vulnerabilities in scholarly publishing and peer review. Recent trends, however, suggest a shift in the intent and frequency of these acts, driven by broader challenges such as predatory journals and diminishing public trust in science.

The Evolution of Academic Hoaxes

Historical Context

Hoaxes targeting academia date back centuries, often intended to mock intellectual hubris. Iconic cases like the Piltdown Man, a forged archeological discovery, highlighted gullibility in scientific circles. In the modern era, Alan Sokal’s 1996 hoax exposed lapses in intellectual rigor within cultural studies journals, sparking widespread debate about academic standards.

Rise in Frequency and Scope

Data indicate a marked rise in academic hoaxes since 2009. Early 21st-century hoaxes were sporadic, often isolated attempts to critique specific practices. However, between 2013 and 2018, the annual frequency of hoaxes increased, with several targeting predatory journals and conferences. These hoaxes, often orchestrated by academics and journalists, aimed to expose exploitative practices and a lack of editorial diligence.

List of Notable Academic Hoaxes

A comprehensive list of prominent academic hoaxes from 2009 to 2020 underscores the growing prevalence and evolving tactics of these interventions. Each case reveals unique strategies, ranging from the use of absurd premises to highlight editorial weaknesses to exposing systemic flaws in entire fields of scholarship. These hoaxes often serve as both a critique of academic processes and a tool for accountability.

Below is an expanded explanation of each hoax and its significance:

• 2009 (Phil Davis): Davis submitted a computer-generated manuscript to a journal that lacked peer review integrity. The nonsensical paper was accepted for publication, revealing the journal's focus on financial gain rather than scientific rigor. This case was one of the first to highlight the issue of predatory publishing and set a precedent for subsequent hoaxes (Davis, 2009).
• 2010 (John McLachlan): McLachlan's hoax involved a fake conference abstract mocking the credulity of integrative medicine. Despite its absurd content, the abstract was accepted, exposing weak vetting standards in alternative medicine conferences (McLachlan, 2010).
• 2011 (Maarten Boudry): Boudry targeted a religious philosophy journal, submitting a hoax paper filled with meaningless jargon to parody the field’s reliance on dense language. The acceptance demonstrated editorial gaps and sparked a broader discussion on rigor in philosophy (Coyne, 2012).
• 2013 (John Bohannon): In one of the most significant hoaxes, Bohannon submitted 304 fake papers to open-access journals worldwide. Shockingly, over 60% were accepted, revealing widespread flaws in peer review processes and unethical practices among many journals (Bohannon, 2013).
• 2013 (Dragan Djuric): Djuric aimed to expose predatory publishers by submitting fake research. His hoax shed light on the increasing exploitation of researchers through misleading publication offers (Djuric, 2015).
• 2014 (David Mazières, Eddie Kohler, and Peter Vamplew): These authors submitted a humorous paper consisting entirely of the repeated phrase, “Get me off your f***ing mailing list.” Its acceptance demonstrated how little attention some journals paid to content quality (Beall, 2014).
• 2015 (Mark Shrime): Shrime authored a satirical article titled “Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?”, filled with absurd content to expose predatory journals. This hoax highlighted the ease with which nonsensical studies could be published for a fee (Segran, 2015).
• 2017 (Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay): The infamous “Conceptual Penis” paper was written to criticize gender studies. The hoax sparked widespread debate about rigor in certain humanities disciplines, particularly gender and cultural studies (Boghossian and Lindsay, 2017).
• 2018 (Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay, and Peter Boghossian): This hoax expanded on earlier efforts, involving 20 fake submissions to cultural studies journals. Seven papers were accepted, some of which received positive peer reviews. The project argued that ideological biases could overshadow scholarly rigor in some fields (Pluckrose et al., 2018).
• 2020 (Dan Baldassare): Baldassare submitted a humorous, pop-culture-laden article to a predatory journal, which accepted it without any review. His hoax underscored the lack of quality control and editorial scrutiny among exploitative publishers (Baldassare, 2020a).