Scientific Data Fraud
Discussions center on allegations of data fabrication, fraud, and misconduct in scientific research papers, particularly in psychology and behavioral science, featuring cases like Harvard professor Francesca Gino and Dan Ariely. Debates distinguish between errors, incompetence, and intentional fakery, emphasizing replication failures and the need for raw data publication.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Related. Others?Is it defamation to point out scientific research fraud? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37152030 - Aug 2023 (13 comments)Harvard professor Francesca Gino was accused of faking data - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36968670 - Aug 2023 (146 comments)Fabricated data
Would this imply that someone faked data in a paper they published?
I suspect this has something to do with the author's intentions. The author here has no reward attached to people believing her conclusions drawn from this data. Instead she may wish to just show people "look at this dumb cool thing I made" or she is using this to pitch her skills at potential recruiters, in which case honesty is a good policy to filter for good employers.For scientists and commercial interests, the quality of the data could be fundamental to the point they are
not really. So far, the issue is exaggerated. He obviously obraied made up or modified data from some insurance, used them without deep suspicion. Once it was obviousl that there experiments could not be replicated, he did publish the original data. And as soon as he saw indications of inappropriatenes, he withdraw the original paper.So, so far, one lousy, or lazy and rushed up paper publication.
This doesn't appear to be fakery but rather an error. This article points to the value of publishing the raw data and the software used to analyze it.Just casually dismissing it as "fakery" removes the opportunity to learn from it.
Write up about this too: https://behavioralscientist.org/harvard-professor-under-scru...
How do we know that a paper was based on false data?
"The DCSD found that the defendant had committed scientific dishonesty by appearing as the sole author of an article and by including a reference which did not support the data it indicated to support"We all know what's really going on here. It's not a coincidence that this paper is very controversial.Many, many papers would have errors like the above but are not hunted down like this.
For reference, DePalma (the accused) was featured in a New Yorker article in 2019 [1] that was shared and discussed here on HN at the time [2].(For those that didn't read this article, DePalma is accused of faking the data to match earlier findings w/ another peer to "beat her to the punch," but the initial data and the drawn conclusions are apparently still "valid".)[1]: <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/08/
New info from the Buzzfeed article:> “I can see why it is tempting to think that I had something to do with creating the data in a fraudulent way,” [Ariely] told BuzzFeed News. “I can see why it would be tempting to jump to that conclusion, but I didn’t.” He added, “If I knew that the data was fraudulent, I would have never posted it.” [..] he said that all his contacts at the insurer had left and that none of them remembered what happened, either. [..] Asked by BuzzFeed News when the expe