Saturday, June 09, 2007

Dumb as dirt: The Joanne's Journey story.


We are not even remotely done with the jaw-dropping dumbassitude of Blogging Tory Joanne (True Blue), but here's a little something for your Sunday evening literary amusement.

From this ignorant piece of swill, Joanne links to this idiotic Lifesite article, which solemnly informs us that:

A study released in 2005 in Psychological Reports confirmed earlier findings that homosexual men have on average a 20-year shortened life span.

Whoo hoo -- "Psychological Reports", is it? And what do we know about that periodical? Well, there's the "Purpose and Content" page, where we read (among other things):

Controversial material of scientific merit is welcomed ...

We work hard to balance critical editing, specific constructive suggestions for changes, and to make the approach interdisciplinary.

OK, already I'm a bit leery since the journal openly welcomes "controversial material"; you know, as opposed to, say, well-researched stuff, that sort of thing. But, hey ... here's the best part:

Publication Arrangements

Publication is in order of receipt of proof from the authors. There are three publication arrangements.

(1) Regular articles. These are articles which require from 2 through 20 printed pages. Charges are $27.50 per page in multiples of four pages, plus special fees for composition (e.g., tables, figures). Authors receive 200 preprints; additional reprints and covers can be ordered.

(2) One-page articles and notes. This arrangement is useful where the author does not intend to do further work in the area but feels that preliminary findings should be put on record, where it is expected that it will be several years before the final study is completed and reported, or where a particular finding can be reported completely in one page. The author submits a one-page summary of a study accompanied by the full report for filing with the Archive for Psychological Data. Charge is $27.50. Authors receive 50 preprints; additional preprints and covers can be ordered.

(3) Monograph supplements. Certain papers printing to more than 20 pages are published as monographs supplements. These are distributed to subscribers of Perceptual and Motor Skills or Psychological Reports as parts of regular issues and are also made available as separates. Charges are $27.50 per page in multiples of four pages, plus special fees for composition (e.g., tables, figures). Authors receive 200 preprints of the monographs with covers; additional preprints can be ordered.

Yes, you read that right -- you get published in "Psychological Reports" after you send them $27.50 per page (in multiples of four pages). In short, that journal is what is known in the biz as a "vanity publication" -- if you can cough up the dough, you too can see your name in print. In other words, that rag isn't worth the trees it cost to print it. And that's the basis of Joanne's pretentious, patronizing dumbassitude.

The word "stupid" doesn't begin to do that woman justice but, at the moment, it's the best I can come up with.

21 comments:

jj said...

"The word "stupid" doesn't begin to do that woman justice but, at the moment, it's the best I can come up with."
How about "cataclysmically feeble-minded"?

It amazes me that these wingnuts continually cite bastions of imbecility like "lifesite" as if they were credible sources. "Mad" magazine has more credibility than "lifeshite".

Ti-Guy said...

Oh, this is the worst I've seen in a long time.

Bad Joanne....bad, bad, bad.

M@ said...

Hey, it confirms her world view. It must be right.

Anonymous said...

Like hanging out here does for you, right m-splat?

Adam C said...

Er, CC? Page charges are standard in publication in scientific journals. In fact, based on my sadly limited experience, $27.50 is on the low side (which may itself indicate that these journals are not on the first tier; I can't speak to that).

It's quite clear that all submissions must go out for peer review and be accepted by an editorial process before any money changes hands.

The receipt by the author of at least 50 preprints is also pretty standard.

I know it sounds like one of those we'll-publish-your-child's-poetry-in-our-book scams, but as it stands it's perfectly legit.

Now, I'm not at all familiar with individual psychology journals and I don't really see how a study of gay life expectancy is relevant to that discipline, but I wouldn't expect an accurate interpretation of the study from "lifesite" anyway.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks for the traffic, as always.

Ti-Guy said...

Can't you come up with a less juvenile and less predictable retort?

Frankly, if I had locked myself outside my house wearing nothing but my underwear, I wouldn't be thanking anyone for having invited others to gawk.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Frankly, if I had locked myself outside my house wearing nothing but my underwear, I wouldn't be thanking anyone for having invited others to gawk.

Seriously?

Ti-Guy said...

I guess I have to get out the finger-puppets in order to make myself clear...or are you engaging in faux-incredulity again?

*yawn* That's sooo played...

Grog said...

Hmmm...dig a little further, and you find this piece of swill on Lifesite, which points predictably to the discredited hack Paul Cameron.

Mysteriously, it also points to the magazine "Psychological Reports", which is a pay to publish journal that Cameron frequents, and serious researchers dismiss as low grade.

Joanne - please try to find credible sources for your spewage. (I'll give you a hint - anything that cites Paul Cameron isn't likely to pass muster when scrutinized)

Ti-Guy said...

Well, that's Joanne's dilema. She can't find credible sources to support her case: that people should be persecuted based on lifestyle choices she doesn't like.

Of course, she'll never admit that that is her case, but that's only because, like all Conservatives, she's a liar.

Adam C said...

Again: virtually all journals are 'pay-to-publish'. It does not in any way diminish their credibility. The reputation of Psychological Reports, on the other hand, does not seem to be terribly high anyway.

And without having read the study in question, I have serious doubts about its validity. The only way to know that someone is gay is to have them state it in public. If the gay marriage debate in Canada taught us anything at all, it is that there is a huge generation gap when it comes to accepting homosexuality. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of gay septuagenarians pass away still in the closet, skewing any kind of analysis of life expectancy.

Red Tory said...

Ti-Guy — It’s hopeless to expect any sort of serious or legitimate response from Joanne. In fact, in my experience, she’s quite steadfast in NOT defending her positions, preferring instead to issue smarmy little retorts as a way of demonstrating her complete indifference to whatever criticism might come her way. Does it matter that the sources she quotes repeatedly are utterly discredited and beneath contempt? Not in the least. And why would it? They, like her, freely traffic in lies and deceit as they propound their so-Con nonsense. She's completely impervious to facts, logic, reason or anything whatsoever that might threaten to intrude on her insular world of wingnuttery.

the rev. said...

Psst....Ti-Guy, homosexuality isn't a "lifestyle choice" any more than having blue eyes, being schizophrenic, or an alcoholic is a choice. It doesn't much matter whether it is nature or nurture, it sure as hell isn't something someone just wakes up and decides to be one day.
I suppose there is a lot of nurture (or maybe a lack thereof) involved in becoming a blogging tory dumbass, but I think in Joanne's case, being a dingbat is a "lifestyle choice"

Ti-Guy said...

Psst....Ti-Guy, homosexuality isn't a "lifestyle choice" any more than having blue eyes, being schizophrenic, or an alcoholic is a choice.

I used the expression "lifestyle choice" because Joanne's discussion was about sexual practices, not an overt condemnation of homosexuals per se (although the rest of us are very familiar with that righty 'code' and know exactly what they're condemning). Particular sexual practices (where to put what in which orifice) are lifestyle choices.

Anonymous said...

She took the post down. What a loser.

the rev. said...

Ti-guy,
True - that whole business of the rightards condemning "homosexual practices" instead of coming out and saying they hate fags is common enough, I just wanted to make sure that we didn't fall into the fundementalist trap of claiming homosexuals can be "cured"

Also, the phrase "homosexual practices" always makes me laugh -- they get to have practices? How come our team never gets to have practices?

Ti-Guy said...

I just wanted to make sure that we didn't fall into the fundementalist trap of claiming homosexuals can be "cured"

Believe me, I don't suffer from those kinds of delusions. It's hilarious (and sad) to read about all the "ex-gays" for whom the cure just didn't take.

I think that kind of therapy should be outlawed. I think it's a form of psychological torture.

Necator said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Necator said...

The lists the impact factor for Psychological Reports as 0.291. Anything less than 1 is usually considered total crap for a professional journal. As an aside, Psychological Reports is also listed as a social science journal, not a science journal. Interpret what you will.

Crabgrass said...

the rev: "...they get to have practices? How come our team never gets to have practices?"

No kidding, eh?

And an agenda. The Homosexual Agenda. Where's my fucking agenda? Huh? Those bastards.