Yes! I was typing up a long reply to this post and you wrote most of it. I’ve worked in academic publishing of various kinds for thirty years or so and I still laugh at hoaxes but I am very wary of drawing conclusions from them. IMO, conclusions that are drawn from successful hoaxes are almost always wrong and conclusions drawing specifically from the hoax contribute to bullying that distorts the scientific/academic process and are little more than elaborate driving trollies. Hoaxing can demonstrate some fairly obvious (post-hoax) things–local corruption on an editorial board, the overinflation of a career, etc.–but almost always one of the things exposed by a hoax is that the hoaxer is also in the wrong.
I’ve been hoaxed and I’ve hoaxed. I’m an advocate of hoaxing but at the same time, I think conclusions drawn from hoaxes are seldom (maybe never) useful beyond the narrow context of the hoax itself. In fact, I’d argue that successful hoaxes are successful in large part because they work within a circumscribed context and they Inevitably break down outside of their native context.
I’d add: Humans make mistakes. Hoaxes point out our mistakes but, whew, we make a lot more mistakes than hoaxes. Journals, editorial boards, editors who can’t be fooled are fooling themselves, and us.
