Yeah, we remember that one.
PS Here’s the actual reference:
https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/
That’s quite a reading and even rather fun, in case someone missed it. (End PS)
By the way, that such journals about ‘feminism’ and so on are considered ‘academic’ is alone a big sign screaming that the ‘progress’ has gone backwards many hundreds of years, beyond the ‘darkest’ (whatever that is supposed to mean) of ages, surpassing auguries as a scholarly discipline. Man, even these forums are much more of a scientific journal 
, and very peer-reviewed at that.
Anyway, I wasn’t even referring to that one there — it was about real science (yes, just like that), very experimental and so on, mind you. If you want examples of notoriety, look for the case of Haruko Obokata, for instance — although I assure you it’s just happened to be a more resonant one.
It’s more or less like discussing the ethics of that fairytale boy who pointed out that the king has no clothes.
Yeah, go on, invite me when you do it — I’ll join you.
Oh, quite solid suggestions, based on years of professional experience, have been made, I read them at some point. Do you really wish to got into that on this forum? I thought it as efficient as trying to explain quantum mechanics to some bumpkins, but if someone’s really interested…
It’s not going to just ‘fix itself’ as it is, with those academic helminths, just sitting there in the nourishing stream and absorbing it, comprising the overwhelming majority, apparently, thus the status quo satifsying them completely (and the one or two percent who are genuinely interested in what’s the purpose of academic institutions in the first place tend to be outcasts at best, as said — provided they survive to the point of some academic autonomy… many do not due to how the system works). Although self-governing is crucial to a functional academia, some systematic changes must be made.
You cannot go back to a rudiment of an old system, which has since evolved for objective reasons (or devolved — depending on the viewpoint… to the ‘publish or perish’ atrocity at the very least, although I should also save the ‘Why Witten is the new Aristotle’ dissertation for another day, perhaps… 
I think the subject might have actually been mentioned at some point… but it’s a digression). I’d say the best shot for that purpose would probably be for the review system evolve as well — starting with anonymity: it used to be something meant to protect academic people from psychos, including violent ones, sending them their perpetuum mobile ideas and such, but seems to have turned out differently nowadays, as discussed above — in case someone’s interested why. In fact, with modern technology, internet in particular, nothing prevents us from doing a portal where anyone in the field can post an open review of an article, with the process being transparent — for starters, that’d be an infinite impovement in this regard.
And why should I show any more regard for your feelings than you do to anyone else’s on this forum?
This phrase doesn’t even make any sense. It’s like, ‘You potato a swim’ or ‘Jenny tomorrow red’ — am I supposed to take this as a suggestion?
Should I? As for expectations… Well, they say if you show a monkey its reflection in a mirror, it’s gonna grimace at that ugly ape in front of it and show signs of aggression — I’d expect this, too. What’s this got do to with this forum? Well, apparently, such behavoiur patterns are not unlike what I’d expect here, either. Does this mean I should try to please everyone?
Unlike some, I prefer to harbour no delusions of grandeur about ‘MUH OPINION!!!111’, and thus perceive the forum accordingly: for instance, if someone doesn’t like my posts, which I mostly do for my own fun, or my tone, they can just pass or whatever — that’s it, nobody owes anyone anything here, essentially. I generally try to reply to reasonable points in a substantial manner, by the way.
(Updated and edited a bit)