“Peer-review” of the work of a Pterodactyl.

Yesterday was a strange day on twitter. As many of you know, one individual came under the scope of #GamerGate mostly because of her view on gaming. She also represents Nintendo in America.

Through a process classic to GamerGate when it identifies a target, digging deeper, people found some disturbing views of this person regarding CP, especially an early thesis. As I was discussing this issue, someone pointed to me that I did not do my due diligence in reading the whole document, which was true. I therefore said that I would review it the way I would review any academic paper. For the interest of time, this is obviously shorter than a full typical review and I did little investigation of the literature on my own.

For disclosure, this is absolutely not my field, so a true expert would likely be way more severe than I am in this review, presented as follows:

Title:

“Speech we hate: an argument for the cessation of international pressure on Japan to strengthen its anti-child pornography laws.”

Abstract: None.

Introduction:

Common issue: no reference in this part of the manuscript (from “one can hardly” to “policies”). As this constitutes the premise of the work, adding references clarifying the many points made in this paragraph is paramount.

The author mentions that having CP as academic subject leads to negative reaction. A reference is needed. It is unclear who is reacting in such way: the public? The academia? The expert of the field? This needs clarification. A quick search on Pubmed (likely a sub-optimal source for extensive literature on the subject) reveals many publications on the subject, leading to believe that at least in academia, the study of the phenomenon is of interest.

“lagged” the brackets are loading the term. Please clarify.

““trade” is misleading”: the author is the one who used the word “trade” in the previous sentence and then criticizes the use of that term. Being specific upfront would be beneficial. The justification of the criticism of the word (“free of charge” etc…) needs references. The author uses the word “almost entirely” which is strong. Is there evidence that there is no significant transaction happening to obtain such material?

“there is also a great deal of confusion…” By whom? policy makers? the public? the experts? Without the support of references this sentence is simply the reflect of what the author believes. As this is an important aspect of the work, this discards many of the point made in the paper.

“many believe…”: who? “many others…”: who? Both points need references.

“sketchy correlation”: “one cannot use the word “sketchy” in an academic paper. Do you mean that the evidence is lacking? That no satisfactory risk assessment (i.e regression analysis) is available? Please clarify.

Paragraph on Japan and its law: again, references and back-up data are necessary. I suspect that this paragraph represents the hypothesis of the paper?

The paragraph “This paper” to “attitudes and policies” is appropriate as it refers to the structure of the project itself. Note that the project seems very outreaching, as it is highly challenging/inappropriate to change policies based on a single opinion type paper. Saying that “this paper could be seen as hypotheses generating “may be more appropriate.

Material and Methods:

Major flaw of this paper. No methodology is detailed in term of data collection and analysis. How was the review of literature conducted? What types of papers were considered appropriate for review? Were they reviewed in full? Were they scored? How did the author deal with potential missing data?

This paper could have benefited from classic methods used in writing meta-analyses.

The lack of clear methodology clearly limits the importance of the paper.

Results:

Most of the text will be reviewed as results (please refer to the prior comment).

Legislative Action Against CP: This paragraph has major weaknesses. Some references are noted, but most of the paragraph often uses only one reference and analyses it as representative or reflexive of an era. More comprehensive review with multiple view-points would be critical. The paragraph starting with “the police also claimed…” is unusual. Were the claims made by the police? What about the institution? A balance of the contribution of executive/legislative instances would be beneficial.

“1990’s, law enforcement… simple possessors”: the word “simple” is loading the sentence, especially as no reference is provided to support the concept that possession can be seen as “simple”. This whole paragraph has the same weakness and is more an opinion than a review (for example, the author explain that this was a “harsh” policy but with no back-up data). In the follow-up sentence the possessors, who were “simple” are now “mere”, again revealing that the author is now stating her opinion on that matter with no data to back-up that claim. This would be best backed-up by meta-analyses on harm/lack of harm of possession. The author again states that “law enforcement claimed”: what was the context of these claims? What evidences were they using? If none, please state the status of the literature available at the time.

The next part regarding the status in the US is more detailed. Some more evidence would be needed, but this part is more analytic.

The part about Japan is confusing because it is unclear what the ratio real/CG or graphic novels CP the author is referring to. As well, projection of this ratio and correlation with the type of CP in the other countries of interest would be necessary information. It also goes to conflate issues around prostitution which are out of the scope of this paper.

The conclusion of the “Internationally” paragraph would benefit from references and less extrapolation. Note that knowledge of references leading to the decision would be most useful to the reader.

Literature Review:

The first statement should be presented as conclusion of the review. It unfortunately loads the whole chapter and shows the personal bias of the author.

This chapter is difficult for me to comment upon, as it has no data but seems to refer to paper presenting opinions. This may be classic way of presenting in social science, so I will be less critical. In my opinion, reference to or creation of a meta-analysis would be of high importance to present the data, if possible to generate in this field.

A major flaw is the conflation of points coming from scholarly analysis and opinion from the author. As an example the idea that “preference for pre-pubescent…. It is not a dangerous condition by itself” is an unsupported claim. Other such biases show in the text.

The next part goes on more general aspect of Universalism versus Relativism. Although interesting, the applicability of the theory to the question is questionable. This would be best supported by specific data/references. The same way, the next part on potential effects of consumption of CP as any other media is unsupported claim. As this is a major aspect of the work, this needs evidence (showing that CP is equivalent to any other media). The sentence “the same idea should apply…as they wish” is largely unsupported and reflects the personal statement of the author.

The next paragraph is very unclear. Is the author talking about real CP or not? This is a recurrent issue with this document, and induces much confusion. Everything that follows is along the same line. Comparing CP to videogames is a strange choice, valid if representation, but not if real. This would be more related to “snuff-film”.

The next paragraph deviates widely from the initial subject and goes into very different topics (legality and war). If used, a clearer linkage with the initial subject would be beneficial.

The paragraph Censorship Does Not Solve Problems has only one reference, a press statement. This is not sufficient as this is a major argument in the work presented. The paragraph is entirely speculative.

Conclusion:

The bias of the author shows heavily as possession is qualified as “mere” in the first sentence.

The bias of the author shows in:”hypocritical for the West…Rights of Child”. The conclusion seems to go back to act depicting real children. As explained above, this is a recurring challenge in this text.

One sentence is extremely strange in this context: “no proof that real children are ever harmed in the creation…”

Again, wide speculations ensue, not supported in the prior paragraphs. Nowhere in the text is it shown that improving healthcare of education would reduce child abuse, etc…

The paragraph “clearly.. conducted” is appropriate. The last part is speculative and unsupported in the present body of work (“CP is not the cause…ills… red herring…”).

Response to editor:

Interesting topic but paper significantly hampered by lack of clear methodology. The lack of clarification in term of subject is also a major weakness. Is the author talking about CP with real children? Illustrations? Both?

The style is also confusing with multiple examples of conflation “literature”/opinion from the author. This and the lack of supporting data markedly limit the validity of the points exposed. The conclusion is heavily speculative and unsupported by the prior paragraphs, but is in line with the introduction, showing the bias of the author. This research would be best performed following classic methods used for meta-analyses, especially considering the topic and the will to reach recommendations, impossible without high academic standard.

Recommendation:

Reject for publication.

In conclusion, this is a paper with many flaws. My criticism of her point of view is now educated.

�