[W:542] Star Harvard business professor stripped of tenure, fired for manipulating data in studies on dishonesty

[j brown's body]

But this business school professor no one’s ever heard of apart from this misconduct is the most renowned scientist Harvard has ever produced.

That will change.

 

[NOLA Dude]

So, now you can see Harvard deals with wrongdoing, right? They investigated and fired the professor.

It only took 10 years

 

[Chomsky]

Tell me you know nothing of scientific publication without saying you know nothing of scientific publication.

Bingo. He's criticizing the very first step in the process of peer review - publication!

 

[TamleeB]

The professor denies she committed fraud. You take Harvard's side in order to condemn it because Trump is attacking it.

He barks. MAGA jumps.

It has nothing to do with any interest in scholarly integrity.

Surely if she believes she was wronged by Harvard she will fight this. And then it’s possible a court of law could decide.

 

[j brown's body]

It only took 10 years

Advances in technology have made greater scrutiny possible.

 

[ataraxia]

“Glee”? Not really. Now with that being said it appears that Harvard made the correct decision in this matter (although it did appear to take a rather lengthy amount of time). Why are you so bothered by the fact that I believe they made the correct decision? Do you believe they made the correct decision in this matter? I am totally open to a discussion with you regarding the whys and when’s of this matter.

I am open to discussing with you why you think academic fraud is anything new, only now that dear leader is waging a crusade against American academia and intelligentsia.

Are you happy with Trump gutting research and academia everywhere from NIH to Harvard now? And you are trying to justify it by trying to paint a picture of all of them being corrupt and worthy of having mud slinged at them? So you can go chasing after your cat eating Haitians instead?

 

[ataraxia]

Surely if she believes she was wronged by Harvard she will fight this. And then it’s possible a court of law could decide.

The research community is self-correcting enough. Rarely do these cases have to go do court. Neither judges nor juries have any idea of how science or research works, and are in no position to decide.

You have no clue how science or the research community work- and with every post you are proving it more and more. Stop digging.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Bingo. He's criticizing the very first step in the process of peer review - publication!

It was supposedly peer reviewed 10 years ago and they never caught the lies. How do you explain that?

 

[Ikari]

Explain how you think publication in a scientific journal is supposed to work.

You create a hypothesis and a testing plan on how to test the hypothesis. You collect data and analyze results. If the data does not support the hypothesis, you either need to figure out if your test parameters aren't correct, the analysis isn't correct, or the hypothesis isn't correct. If the data does support the hypothesis, you need to verify that the test parameters, analysis, and hypothesis are correct and take further data. If, in the end, everything pans out you write a paper and submit it to one or more journals. The journals will select reviewers who are experts in the subject matter you're writing about, and the reviewers will then attempt to completely destroy everything you've done for the past few years. If, after many rounds of questions and answers, you can satiate them, they will sign off on your paper. The journal may at that point then publish your paper if they feel it's appropriate for their journal.

 

[TamleeB]

I am open to discussing with you why you think academic fraud is anything new, only now that dear leader is waging a crusade against American academia and intelligentsia.

Are you happy with Trump gutting research and academia everywhere from NIH to Harvard now? And you are trying to justify it by trying to paint a picture of all of them being corrupt and worthy of having mud slinged at them? So you can go chasing after your cat eating Haitians instead?

I don’t believe academic fraud is “anything new”, and I do not recall that I have said such a thing. But I am totally open if you have evidence I have?
Harvard’s decision in this matter is their decision, it has nothing to do with Trump. It was being looked at long before Trump was elected. Now, instead of desperately attempting to deflect, how about you attempt to focus on the actual topic of this particular thread. Are you in?

 

[Chomsky]

You should work on your talking points which a flawed. This shows either it was never peer reviewed or the peer review process is corrupted otherwise it would have never made it past the peer review process 10 years ago.

It likely wasn't peer reviewed.

You realize there's no mandate for peer review, right? Do you think ever paper gets peer reviewed? There's no formal or official process.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Advances in technology have made greater scrutiny possible.

How many different excuses are you up to at this point? About 15 and you are still flailing.

I see you tried to link to a new thread you started about RFK to further your deflection.

 

[TamleeB]

The research community is self-correcting enough. Rarely do these cases have to go do court. Neither judges nor juries have any idea of how science or research works, and are in no position to decide.

You have no clue how science or the research community work- and with every post you are proving it more and more. Stop digging.

The research community is “self-correcting”? I will readily admit I don’t have a great deal of knowledge regarding the research community, and from your responses I would say we are even on that. .
Stop digging? What am I “digging”? Can you please be very specific in your response. Thanks!

 

[Chomsky]

Yes, “then.” It’s taken Harvard 4 years to do something about it.

That sounds about right, Napoleon, Research, peer review, and investigation, are not fast processes. They're painstakingly slow.

 

[Napoleon]

Blatant? What made it blatant? What, exactly, convinces you that Harvard authorities knew and deliberately turned away?

She lifted the work of others by the paragraph with zero citation or attribution in most of her work. If a student had done that they’d be out on their ears for plagiarism. But instead of firing Claudine for plagiarism - Harvard made a bizarre distinction in her case between plagiarism and what they called “inadequate citation,” and kept her on saying that this “inadequate citation” wasn’t a violation of standards.

Also, there's an important distinction to be made between social science and the physical sciences. One is squishy, the other hard.

We can talk all day about whether or not social studies are science but that’s what academics insist on calling it so here we are.

 

[TamleeB]

It likely wasn't peer reviewed.

You realize there's no mandate for peer review, right? Do you think ever paper gets peer reviewed? There's no formal or official process.

I found this from 2023 and thought it was interesting. Not that it answers your question but it does give a bit more insight. I will look further and see if I can find out more information if it was or was not peer reviewed.

Harvard considers revoking tenure of dishonesty researcher

Harvard University is reviewing an embattled business professor’s tenure for possible revocation. Francesca Gino, a researcher of dishonesty, stands accused of manipulating data. Inside Higher Ed confirmed with Gino’s legal team Monday that the university sent her the tenure-review notice, but...

www.insidehighered.com

 

[NOLA Dude]

It likely wasn't peer reviewed.

You realize there's no mandate for peer review, right? Do you think ever paper gets peer reviewed? There's no formal or official process.

The high-profile academic journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published and then later retracted her study. That journal requires peer review to be published so it was peer reviewed. How did they not catch the lies?

 

[j brown's body]

How many different excuses are you up to at this point? About 15 and you are still flailing.

I see you tried to link to a new thread you started about RFK to further your deflection.

None of my assertions have been contradicted.

The Impact of Advanced Technology Toward Plagiarism Detection and Reducing Plagiarism Levels in Academic Institutions

1. Introduction This paper will put forward the current status of sophisticated detection software for plagiarism that has improved the detection percentage, resulting in a reduction of copied materials in academic institutions. These types of detection or anti-plagiarism programs are making...

aithor.com

 

[Chomsky]

It was supposedly peer reviewed 10 years ago and they never caught the lies. How do you explain that?

1] Do you have a cite for that?

2] Peer review building to consensus is a long slow process. Remember, you're dealing with the unknown. It has to be determined to become known.

 

[Napoleon]

You create a hypothesis and a testing plan on how to test the hypothesis. You collect data and analyze results. If the data does not support the hypothesis, you either need to figure out if your test parameters aren't correct, the analysis isn't correct, or the hypothesis isn't correct. If the data does support the hypothesis, you need to verify that the test parameters, analysis, and hypothesis are correct and take further data. If, in the end, everything pans out you write a paper and submit it to one or more journals. The journals will select reviewers who are experts in the subject matter you're writing about, and the reviewers will then attempt to completely destroy everything you've done for the past few years. If, after many rounds of questions and answers, you can satiate them, they will sign off on your paper. The journal may at that point then publish your paper if they feel it's appropriate for their journal.

Great. So explain to me, if it happened at all, how these thorough reviewers missed her open data fraud knowing that an anonymous blog of her peers easily detected it when they looked at it 11 years later.

 

[Taylor]

How do you think the articles get out into the realm for peer review?

Your post displays a lack of understanding of the process.

??

Typically, they don't "get out into the realm" unless they pass peer review first.

 

[NOLA Dude]

That sounds about right, Napoleon, Research, peer review, and investigation, are not fast processes. They're painstakingly slow.

False. She was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal in 2011 so they peer review would have been done prior to publication.

 

[NOLA Dude]

The research community is “self-correcting”? I will readily admit I don’t have a great deal of knowledge regarding the research community, and from your responses I would say we are even on that. .
Stop digging? What am I “digging”? Can you please be very specific in your response. Thanks!

That poster is apparently very upset about this fraud at Harvard being exposed.

 

[Napoleon]

1] Do you have a cite for that?

2] Peer review building to consensus is a long slow process. Remember, you're dealing with the unknown. It has to be determined to become known.

Peer review is supposed to be on the front end to vet submissions so scientific journals don’t publish total bullshit. It’s not supposed to work by publishing obvious bullshit and waiting for anonymous bloggers to point out data fraud 11 years later.

 

[TamleeB]

It likely wasn't peer reviewed.

You realize there's no mandate for peer review, right? Do you think ever paper gets peer reviewed? There's no formal or official process.

Found another interesting article.

Law Firm Withdraws From Representing HBS Prof. Gino in Suit Against Harvard | News | The Harvard Crimson

Harvard Business School professor Francesca Gino is no longer represented by Title IX law firm Nesenoff & Miltenberg after four attorneys from the firm withdrew from her discrimination case against Harvard on Thursday.

www.thecrimson.com