They wanted to play a hoax proving gender studies to be a giant crock of meaningless shit.
Well, turns out those who already thought it was were convinced, while intelligent people noticed that their hoax seems to have really just exposed these scientists as idiots with an ideological axe to grind:
Who got hoaxed here? It looks like the respectable journal sniffed out that your stuff was stinky and decided you could be fleeced for a few bucks in a vanity publication.
Why pick gender studies specifically to skewer with your really impressive conceptual penises? While your point that reputation and peer review is lacking in some quarters appears well grounded, I question your conclusion that the professionalism of the field of gender studies per se is called into question by your result. I do not defend the field; I simply note you have failed to present convincing evidence to back up your claims about it. Your entire body of evidence relevant to this contention consists of your conclusion that the guilty journal is reputable. You base this conclusion upon the single fact that an individual from a supposedly reputable journal referred you to it. In effect, you have posited a transitive property of reputability of an absolute nature. There have to be better criteria for making a finding of reputability than that. Further, you have reached a global conclusion based upon a single data point. Put it back in your pants, fellows. You’re embarrassing yourselves.
Ummm… As scientists you should know better than to reach conclusions from a single data point. You have a single gibberish article accepted into a marginal journal. To actually support your claim that it was accepted because of the catch-phrases it uses, you need to produce at least 20-30 gibberish articles with these catch-phrases, as well as another 20-30 without the catch-phrases, but which are otherwise no different. If the 20-30 articles with the catch phrases are accepted at a significantly higher rate than those without the catch phrases, then, and only then, you can make a claim as to a positive relationship between presence of catch phrases and acceptance. At this point, all you have is an anecdote.
I recommend that the authors take a refresher course in Experimental Design.
If you have to pay someone to publish your paper, it actually is not a prominent journal. This hoax seems to be on the authors who paid money, but I’m fairly astonished by the number of people who think this journal is prominent. Nobody working in the field of gender and sexuality studies has ever heard of it. People publish in these academic journal scams when they don’t know anything or any better. . . so what does that say about the authors?
Perhaps best of all was this take:
Watch out Gender Studies! We paid a scam journal money to publish a scam article and they did! Score one for physics!
Let us laugh at their folly. They think they’ve proven something, bless their
hearts conceptual penises.