tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7890764972166411105.post8616770005906886010..comments2024-03-29T06:02:41.835+01:00Comments on Nick Brown's blog: What to do with people who commit scientific fraud?Nick Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00172030184497186082noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7890764972166411105.post-21011649876812880862015-05-22T11:36:59.890+02:002015-05-22T11:36:59.890+02:00Dear Dr. R,
You wrote: "It is not hard to di...Dear Dr. R,<br /><br />You wrote: "It is not hard to distinguish between good and bad research practices, and it is time to abandon the term questionable research practices that blurs the line between good and bad. " <br /><br />What do you think of the following article, which seems to state that QRP's should be called "questionable reporting practices" ?<br /><br />http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11336-015-9445-1/fulltext.html<br /><br />Kinds regardsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7890764972166411105.post-5086866959339433412015-05-21T18:08:07.377+02:002015-05-21T18:08:07.377+02:00Dear Brent,
I am relatively new to the world of ...Dear Brent, <br /><br />I am relatively new to the world of blogs and twitter. Is commenting on somebody's blog considered bad (hijacking)? <br /><br />Personally, I find nothing more disappointing than posting a blog without comments. So, I keep responding to these issues here. <br /><br />I still like the comparison of dishonest research practices with doping in sports. There are clear rules which substances are banned and considered doping and there are clear rules about punishment of using these substances. Sometimes athletes are banned for a limited time and sometimes they are banned for life. <br /><br />Lance Armstrong is banned for life and cannot even participate in an official amateur race. Some people may think this is what he deserves and some people may think that this is too harsh. <br /><br />I think the more important issue right now is that we do not have anything close to the rules in the professional sports entertainment industry in science. I wonder why?<br /><br />Sincerely, Dr. R<br /><br /><br />Dr. Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7890764972166411105.post-16872061403862828042015-05-21T17:15:02.654+02:002015-05-21T17:15:02.654+02:00This is a cool post! I like these suggestions for ...This is a cool post! I like these suggestions for changing the incentive structure and culture of science. Moreover, I agree that the Pete Rose rule was a reaction to the events of the day more than a completely well thought out suggestion about how to deal with fakers. My initial thought was that people who have been shown by a preponderance of the evidence to have passed faked datasets as legitimate should be banned from receiving grants and publishing papers for life. I would like to think more deeply about my suggestion but I posted an initial defense on my blog so I don’t hijack yours! Here is a link: http://tinyurl.com/lk8c476Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07461139275622668457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7890764972166411105.post-48410010182921897782015-05-21T15:35:24.922+02:002015-05-21T15:35:24.922+02:00Dear Dale Barr,
obviously I agree with you. I thi...Dear Dale Barr,<br /><br />obviously I agree with you. I think it is shameful that governing bodies in psychology (APA, APS, SPSP, etc.) have failed to come up with clear guidelines which research methods are legitimate and which one's are deceptive, dishonest, and discouraged.<br /><br />Optional stopping is ok when it is disclosed. <br /><br />Removing outliers is ok, if it is not done systematically in one direction. <br /><br />Reporting p = .054 as p = .05, significant is not ok. Saying p = .054, and interpreting as "assuming this effect can be replicated, it would mean...." is ok. <br /><br />Conducting multiple studies is ok, only reporting the significant one's is not. <br /><br />It is not hard to distinguish between good and bad research practices, and it is time to abandon the term questionable research practices that blurs the line between good and bad. <br /><br />Of course, deceptive rounding is different from making up a whole study. So there can be different consequences depending on the severity of misconduct, but first we need a clear definition of misconduct. <br /><br />Sincerely, Dr. R<br /><br /> Dr. Rhttps://replicationindex.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7890764972166411105.post-55722204979736821952015-05-21T14:44:00.744+02:002015-05-21T14:44:00.744+02:00OK, so is "banishment from academia forever&q...OK, so is "banishment from academia forever" a punishment, or a reward disguised as a punishment? ;)<br /><br />Once it becomes known that a scientist has committed fraud, they will no longer be able to get research funding. Ever. So that is a kind of punishment already built into the system.<br /><br />However, there should be much stronger penalties than that. Anyone who has knowingly committed fraud on a federal grant should be prosecuted for misuse of public funds. This did happen to Stapel, who had misused something like 2M Euros in public funds, but IIRC, unfortunately all he got was community service. That's outrageously light given the scale of his deception. Imagine if it was discovered that a private company received 2M Euros for a job and was discovered to have faked all the work! It shouldn't be any different for us in academia: if you're going to take the money, you need to do the work, and if you're not going to do the work, you should give it back or face the consequences. Unfortunately too many academics see grants as "gifts" rather than as loans to be paid back with knowledge.<br /><br />So how bad would the fraud have to be to rise to the level of criminal/civil prosecution? What if it's just p-hacking, or maybe changing a few cells in a spreadsheet? These are hard questions, but I do think that there is a clear difference between more smaller scale data fudging and the larger scale, willful deception by people like Stapel (and possibly LaCour?) But another part of the solution is for funders should stop giving money to labs that fail to adopt safeguards against fraud and questionable research practices.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16433932891639112214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7890764972166411105.post-72002258544888534142015-05-21T14:42:16.156+02:002015-05-21T14:42:16.156+02:00Dear Nick Brown,
there are many types of fraud a...Dear Nick Brown, <br /><br />there are many types of fraud and the law distinguishes between them. I think we need a clear definition of scientific fraud and a clear legal framework to deal with scientific fraud. <br /><br />I think it can be compared to counterfeiting. There is a clear incentive to the fraudster (e.g., a job at Princeton) and a clear damage to the community. <br /><br />Counterfeiting<br /><br />Anyone who produces counterfeit currency, documents, or goods also commits a type of fraud. Counterfeiting currency is a federal crime, but state laws can also apply if, for example, you forge false birth certificates, driver's licenses, or other documents. Manufacturing goods and selling them while claiming they are a name brand item, such as selling counterfeit shoes, is also considered an act of fraud.<br /><br />Sentencing and rehabilitation are important issues. It is also important to consider the broader cultural environment. If in the USA Black teenagers can be sentenced to years in prison, I think mostly White academics deserve equal treatment. <br /><br />Sincerely, Dr. RDr. Rhttps://replicationindex.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com