You consider having to threaten the reputation of an academic journal by emailing the CEO directly before you even make it to the review for a well written, concise, critical paper "part of that process"?
Not even mentioning that it required the publicity and reputation of a well known figure (Sokal) to even open that door for them.
If that's the "shining light" of this industry - I sure as fuck don't want to see the dirty alleyway.
You could claim that Harris Friedman is an insider - although I don't find a nearly retired (at the time - now actually retired) college professor to be particularly "inside" the journal space, but he is certainly a member of the field.
The people who were insiders (Barbara Fredrickson and the reviewers at American Psychologist) are decidedly unhelpful and uninterested outside of throwing folks under the bus and equivocating around how so much fucking fraud/bullshit ended up in their papers.
Not even mentioning that it required the publicity and reputation of a well known figure (Sokal) to even open that door for them.
If that's the "shining light" of this industry - I sure as fuck don't want to see the dirty alleyway.