• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
TamleeB said:
It has not been perfect. Therefore, there have been times when it is flawed.
Click to expand...
Perfection doesn't exist. But the scientific method has been used and stood the test of time. We went to the moon with it, we've invented the transistor with it, we've come to begin to understand the fundamentals of time and space with it. You'd throw it out, why? Because peer review doesn't catch every case of fraud, and this fraud took 10 years to find. But you think 100's of years of the scientific method should be uprooted because it worked, but just not on a timeline you like?
 
Chomsky said:
It may have received "peer review" prior to publication. But that, if it occurred at all, would be a preliminary cursory review performed by one - or at most several - individuals, to determine if there was merit in opening up the paper for review by the entire community.
Click to expand...
Thats not true and I've pointed it out to you multiple times in this thread. The journal she published in requires completed peer review before publication. Is there a reason why you are ignoring that?

1000008344.webp
 
Ikari said:
Perfection doesn't exist. But the scientific method has been used and stood the test of time. We went to the moon with it, we've invented the transistor with it, we've come to begin to understand the fundamentals of time and space with it. You'd throw it out, why? Because peer review doesn't catch every case of fraud, and this fraud took 10 years to find. But you think 100's of years of the scientific method should be uprooted because it worked, but just not on a timeline you like?
Click to expand...
You and I absolutely agree that perfection does not exist. I am good with sticking to my opinion that it took ten years for this to be addressed in any meaningful way. And in my opinion that is not acceptable. If you feel differently, then I am good with that. I enjoy our conversations.
 
Napoleon said:
The root of the problem is the requirements of tenure to pump out papers like a mill. Universities care about the quantity of publications not the quality. That’s why pay-to-publish journals exist. That’s why the peer review process is so broken for journals which are supposed to be doing it.
Click to expand...
What would you change in order to fix that problem?
 
Taylor said:
It's all the same basic process. Presently, "peer review" is a journal editor sending out a manuscript to several experts in the same field who scrutinize the paper for both its quality and significance. Journals may differ on the number of peers, whether those people interact, how many times they go back and forth, etc.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Taylor said:
Which typically means the paper isn't good enough to survive peer review in a quality journal. It's either a junk study that doesn't tell us anything, or it's of so little significance that nobody would want to read it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, again.

Taylor said:
Most studies don't get recreated. This research wasn't discredited because people were unable to replicate it, but because reviewers got access to the data. That's not typically a part of the peer review process but perhaps should be. It floored me how much data prepared by first and second year grad students goes out and never really gets checked.
Click to expand...

My reference is STEM. In STEM, items of interest absolutely get re-created! Whether they're items of theory (to further science), or items of application (to allow something to be done, or to create a product).

But now you've got me thinking if in the Behavioural Sciences (this topic), publication readers don't recreate studies? Could that be? I'm assuming the publication would be directed at academic community involved in the study's niche. That's how STEM is.
 
Lovebug said:
I don't like hypocrisy or law breakers.
Click to expand...

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of irony meters suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.​

 
TamleeB said:
You and I absolutely agree that perfection does not exist. I am good with sticking to my opinion that it took ten years for this to be addressed in any meaningful way. And in my opinion that is not acceptable. If you feel differently, then I am good with that. I enjoy our conversations.
Click to expand...
It's fine to not agree, I just think that some who want to call this a complete failure of peer review (not saying you specifically) don't understand what peer review is meant to do, or what the scientific method is about. This one case shows that while fraud may make it through the peer review system, that the scientific method on whole will eventually root it out. It's not time to throw publications, review, science out the window. This is not a failure of peer review, nor is it a failure of science. It's an unfortunate circumstance that does come up in every career field out there because humans are fundamentally flawed and some are jerks looking to take advantage of a system.

I'm not about to throw to the curb Maxwell's equations, or Einstein's theory of relativity, or quantum mechanics just because some business professor fabricated data and managed to get published.
 
NOLA Dude said:
Why do you keep repeating things that aren't true? Did you think this was one of your 6 measles threads?

View attachment 67571778
Click to expand...

And you believe peer review merely involves two individuals reviewing a paper pre-publication?

That's where you're wrong. Because as you see, the process worked.

You're attempting to make an argument of semantics.
 
Ikari said:
How are the people reviewing supposed to know the future, or to detect every case of deliberate fraud? Does peer review require that people recreate each experiment being written about to confirm the results themselves?

lol

I don't think you folk really think about this, I think you have a zeal to go after peer review because there is a political motivation to discredit science and academia. This Professor got caught, it shows that the scientific process works.
Click to expand...

In STEM the bolded does indeed occur though, for items of interest. Either through an experiment attempting to further science via pure research, or through application research, or even in product development.
 
NOLA Dude said:
A renowned Harvard University professor was stripped of her tenure and fired after an investigation found she fabricated data on multiple studies focused on dishonesty.

Francesca Gino, a celebrated behavioral scientist at Harvard Business School, was let go after the school’s top governing board determined she tweaked observations in four studies so that their findings boosted her hypotheses, GHB reported.

Harvard administrators notified business faculty that Gino was out of a job in a closed-door meeting this past week, the outlet reported.
nypost.com

Star Harvard business professor stripped of tenure, fired for manipulating data in studies on dishonesty

A renowned Harvard University professor was stripped of her tenure and fired after an investigation found she allegedly manipulated data to support multiple studies she conducted.
nypost.com nypost.com

We are supposed to trust the "experts" right? It reminded me of this:

Click to expand...


I just hope this revelation doesn't dampen Trump's ardor to destroy Harvard.

MAGA.
 
Chomsky said:
You trust consensus.

If the experiment or study, repeatedly, within the community, produces consistent results, consensus builds.

Remember, when you're talking about research - you're talking about the unknown. There's many twists & turns traversed in the process of furthering knowledge.
Click to expand...
Chomsky,

Look, I hear what you and some others are saying but I don't think it is addressing the way these studies get used to push this or that.

If peer review is failing but it happens to be really important and we take it as truth, only to later find out that is causes some unseen thing a few (or many) years later. And we were all eager to 'trust the experts', how much damage should we expect by trusting before that trust is eroded, or gone?
 
Napoleon said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Yes, the hard and important work of undermining independent expertise continues in the interests of empowering authoritarianism.

Onward soldiers of dogma!

It's working so well!!!

1748369360887.webp
 
Chomsky said:
And you believe peer review merely involves two individuals reviewing a paper pre-publication?

That's where you're wrong. Because as you see, the process worked.

You're attempting to make an argument of semantics.
Click to expand...
No, but I showed multiple times that PNAS requires completed peer review before publication which you are purposely ignoring.
 
BitterPill said:
I just hope this revelation doesn't dampen Trump's ardor to destroy Harvard.

MAGA.
Click to expand...
Harvard is likely not the reason for this woman's fraud. It is very likely that is happens at ALL the universities, in the haste to get published, and tenured ...

Perhaps that is how it needs to change?
 
Taylor said:
I don't know that anyone who has submitted a paper to a journal like Nature has considered the peer review process to be a "cursory review" - it's often tedious, time consuming, and cumbersome.

I think if you look at the statistics on the number of papers rejected from a journal like Nature, vs. the number of papers that are retracted after "opening it up to the full review of the community" - you'll find the pre-publication process is the most significant peer-review hurdle.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with Nature. Is that were the fraudster submitted her papers?
 
Conservatives working overtime to drag us down into stupidity.

1748369453876.webp
 
NOLA Dude said:
No, but I showed multiple times that PNAS requires completed peer review before publication which you are purposely ignoring.
Click to expand...

Again I'm not familiar with PNAS, nor did I see it in your OP.

What is the relevance of this organization?
 
Cope said:
Harvard is likely not the reason for this woman's fraud. It is very likely that is happens at ALL the universities, in the haste to get published, and tenured ...

Perhaps that is how it needs to change?
Click to expand...
Absolutely and one would think it should not take 10 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom