My claim was never that social science is immune to the replication crisis or that it could be more accepting of outside criticism; my claim was that singling out "grievance studies" (what the authors take to be sub-branches of critical theory) using poor research methods to make a name for oneself, childish tactics, not getting IRB approval isn't the right way to go about solving such a problem, and that using this as an example doesn't stand up to the large number of hoaxes/stings in hard sciences (see the first couple of links in my original comment). What suggests that the way to go about addressing this bubble (which can and does exist to at least some degree) is to publish more junk papers?

For a critical review of the papers' content, there's reason to believe that the hoax articles' premises may not be totally without merit[0].

"When Boghossian et al. describe their papers to us, the public, they do not explain what their bad arguments are, they only describe the “absurd” conclusions of the papers. So if the hoax is all about peer reviewers accepting bad arguments, then Boghossian et al. are failing to present the proper evidence, and propagating confusion about their own hoax."

[0] https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2018/10/10/on-sokal-squa...