https://www.science.org/content/article/harvard-behavioral-scientist-aces-research-fraud-allegations That report called into question the work of superstar behavioral scientist Dan Ariely, and the paper was subsequently retracted. Now, Simonsohn, Simmons, and Nelson report finding oddities in the data files for another of the experiments, which they say suggests someone had manipulated the data to influence the outcome of the analysis. Gino, who offers corporate keynote speeches and has authored two popular books, contributed the data for the experiment in question, according to the Data Colada bloggers. The Chronicle of Higher Education, which broke the news of the latest twistthe day before the blog post, notes that Gino had told a co-author that a lab manager had collected the data. Other papers by Gino may also contain manipulated data, according to the trio of bloggers. They have posted details of their findings for two papers and say they plan to publish analyses of two more in the coming days. The data sleuths say they have reported their concerns to Harvard. Gino is on administrative leave, according to a note on her faculty page. She did not respond to a request for comment.
The study investigates "whether signing an honesty declaration at the top of a form rather than the bottom made people behave more honestly." I for one would never take part in such a fraudulent scheme for mere dollars. Signed, dave_the_thinker
Silly stance. It sounds an awful lot like the Republicans who claim we can't trust elections because of some isolated instances of voter fraud.
Some studies have to be taken with a grain of salt. For instance a climate study by a university may be questionable if it was funded by EXXON, or a false study claiming hundreds of thousands of people died from the Covid vaccine that was promoted by an anti-vaxxers group.
Science - whichever way the wind is blowing and who’s funding the studies. BTW, this is exactly the point that RFK Jr is making and why the entrenched powerful/wealthy are attacking him.
In the Maher interview I watched, Kennedy said he believes in science, and he was touting having more scientific studies which support his positions. So he embraces scientific studies but argues that the other side of the debate is lying about the numbers and results of those studies. He could be wrong about that, too. I haven't read them. But that's very different to me than questioning the validity of all studies based upon potential fraud found in one.
In my way of thinking there are studies which are valid because they prove what they purport to prove and there are studies which are valid because they fail to prove what they purport to prove. It’s why I tender isolation studies to prove that viruses have never been isolated.
I looked but did not see as to whether these papers were peer reviewed? Maybe these don't get peer reviewed? I do not know, just asking.
Lol... It's not uncommon for these titles to be dishonest in nature. "Fact checkers" are notorious for lying to us about the real facts. "Ministry of truth" is one big propaganda tool... Anytime these so called "honesty" titles are giving you know it's propaganda.
It has to do with fake names that try to create content to deceive us... just like fackcheckers do. But if you want to narrowly focus in on that we can all go back a say this about virtually every single thread started in the forum. You know that kind of narrow focus never lasts here. Every subject has a category and this one is no different.
One of the issues the reporter pointed out was the difficulty in replicating results, which probably tripped flags, and promoted the scrutiny of the underlying data. So apparently yes, but reluctance to own the failure to replicate, bc she had collaborated with so many established, respected names in the field. Peer review seems...negotiable, when there's so much incestuous deference to the objects of review.
https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was “shocked” by what it found. After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%. Both numbers, which he and colleagues report in a medRxiv preprint posted on 8 May, are well above levels they calculated for 2010—and far larger than the 2% baseline estimated in a 2022 publishers’ group report. “It is just too hard to believe” at first, says Sabel of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg and editor-in-chief of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. It’s as if “somebody tells you 30% of what you eat is toxic.” His findings underscore what was widely suspected: Journals are awash in a rising tide of scientific manuscripts from paper mills—secretive businesses that allow researchers to pad their publication records by paying for fake papers or undeserved authorship. “Paper mills have made a fortune by basically attacking a system that has had no idea how to cope with this stuff,” says Dorothy Bishop, a University of Oxford psychologist who studies fraudulent publishing practices. A 2 May announcement from the publisher Hindawi underlined the threat: It shut down four of its journals it found were “heavily compromised” by articles from paper mills.
This issue is a problem and it seems particularly acute for particular “journals” - especially those that are online only. When an author’s name and affiliation appears in a reputable journal, they will receive solicitations from the iffy journals inviting the author to submit other articles and all but guaranteeing acceptance and publication. My agency kept a list of these journals and we were strongly encouraged to look elsewhere. There must be money in it. I still receive these type communications 4+ years post retirement
