2) The editors did not really care if there are errors, if the author insists, he can publish any kind of bs.
3) You are right. It seems in the humanities there is no discourse at all, it's all about who has authority and how social you are
C'mon, a little self doubt won't hurt the "social sciences". The article was rife with complete and utter fancy-looking b.s. Even the title is laughable.
Nothing can excuse the editors of this journal.
[1] http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/08/12/23/2321242/Sof...
but the Web still has it (PDF link): http://www.tektalk.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/herbert_sc...
and ACM still lists the reference (perhaps as a snub to IEEE): http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1469852
Amazing! The first line is: The synthesis of fiber-optic cables is a natural quagmire.
And then the first line of the second paragraph is: We prove that cache coherence and IPv7 are often incompatible.
1) It was not a blind review. The editors knew Sokal was the author and knew he was an important scientist.
2) The editors asked for some revisions, and Sokal refused. http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9607/mst.html
3) It sat in the offices of the journal until they published a "science wars" edition, and included the article because it was from a scientist. In this sense, the hoax reveals almost nothing about the humanities, but does possibly say interesting things about the role authority plays.