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

[NOLA Dude]

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

What is the relevance of this organization?

Thats the journal she published in and I've posted links to them multiple times in this thread and at least once in response to you.

 

[Chomsky]

The advent of AI will literally eliminate the effectiveness of most peer review.
Most peer review, depending upon the subject, involve plagiarism or data fraud.

Data fraud is extremely difficult to prove, and is dependent upon the method of data gathering, accurate data analysis, and the subsequent data presentation methodology.

Bingo!

 

[Ikari]

I'm not familiar with Nature. Is that were the fraudster submitted her papers?

She's a Business professor, it's highly unlikely she published in Nature.

 

[BitterPill]

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?

Perhaps.

However, in my opinion, to Make America Great Again, Harvard must be destroyed, but we should first create a process to funnel its endowment into Trump's treasury, so I see another EO in our immediate future.

MAGA.

 

[TamleeB]

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

What is the relevance of this organization

https://www.science.org/content/article/harvard-behavioral-scientist-aces-research-fraud-allegations

 

[Chomsky]

Having worked for a couple of decades in research at a major university, I've never come across a single person who believed that peer review "really began" after publication.

Truth be told, science is often so incredibly specialized these days, that you may only have a handful of "peers" with the requisite knowledge to adequately provide a decent review.

It's certainly not uncommon for researchers to figure out who their "anonymous" reviewers are simply by the questions they ask the issues they raise. They're the same ones that come up at conferences and visiting lectures. At times it gets pretty political.

----

But yes, the process continues. In fact, journals have "letter to the editor" type sections where you can openly question another scholar's research. Sometimes this goes back and forth over the span of years. It may be two eminent scholars arguing for the future direction of the entire field.

Interesting.

I spent time in Corporate R & D and product development, and the stuff we published in trade journals was indeed considered "peer review". It mostly was application stuff.

We assumed we got it right, but expected the community to ascertain and refine.

Your niches must indeed be quite tiny.

 

[BitterPill]

Any actual opinion on Francesca and Harvard in this particular matter?

I confess to not knowing who Francesca is, but I share Trump's ardor for destroying Harvard as can be evidenced by my earlier posts on this thread, and while I am unaware of Trump's motive, mine is that as people become stupider over time, I become less stupid.

MAGA.

 

[TamleeB]

Perhaps.

However, in my opinion, to Make America Great Again, Harvard must be destroyed, but we should first create a process to funnel its endowment into Trump's treasury, so I see another EO in our immediate future.

MAGA.

So….you have clearly stated your MAGA issues. Now, how about your focus on the actual subject of the thread. Any opinion on Francesca and Harvard? What do you think? Should it have taken 10 years for her to get caught and lose her tenure?

 

[TamleeB]

I confess to not knowing who Francesca is, but I share Trump's ardor for destroying Harvard as can be evidenced by my earlier posts on this thread, and while I am unaware of Trump's motive, mine is that as people become stupider over time, I become less stupid.

MAGA.

All you have to do is actually read the first post, and then various posts after that. Plenty of information regarding the actual subject of the thread ….Francesca. How odd that you are on thread number 407 and you know “nothing “ about the actual subject of the thread.

 

[Chomsky]

But the scientific process is flawed.

Oh come-on.

There is no specific "scientific process". It's a generic catch all.

 

[TamleeB]

I confess to not knowing who Francesca is, but I share Trump's ardor for destroying Harvard as can be evidenced by my earlier posts on this thread, and while I am unaware of Trump's motive, mine is that as people become stupider over time, I become less stupid.

MAGA.

Oh…and bitter I see you following me. This should be fun.

 

[MTAtech]

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.

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

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

Yeah, one professor was dishonest. Therefore no professors can be trusted.
This logical leap is astounding.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

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?

Not trusting the expert have lead to enormous costs take for example climate change. Also eroding the trust in science for short term profits have lead to the rise of authoritarian leaders.

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

Energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming.

www.bbc.com

Fifth National Climate Assessment

The Fifth National Climate Assessment is the US Government’s preeminent report on climate change impacts, risks, and responses. It is a congressionally mandated interagency effort that provides the scientific foundation to support informed decision-making across the United States.

nca2023.globalchange.gov

There those authoritarian leaders have made dismantle science and spreading lies as cornerstones of their movement.

Trump Administration Attacks on Science Trigger Backlash from Researchers

“The risks of remaining silent at this defining time are far greater than the risks of speaking out,” says one scientist regarding the Trump administration’s attacks on science

www.scientificamerican.com

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/27/rupert-murdoch-admits-fox-news-hosts-peddled-election-lies

 

[Ikari]

Absolutely and one would think it should not take 10 years.

Well 2021 it was discovered, the group pulling the data took 2 years to reveal the results in 2023. She was placed on unpaid academic leave starting in 2023 after an 18 month internal probe by Harvard, so likely when the group started pulling data because they were suspicious of her articles, Harvard became aware as well and started an investigation. She was stripped of her professorship and removed from all teaching and research duties at that time. Now she has been officially revoked of tenure and fired.

Why did Harvard take so long after the allegations started coming forth in 2021? Well part of it was a long investigation, part of it was likely that ever since Harvard had put her on academic leave she has had lawsuits against Harvard. I don't know Harvard's policy, but they may have not wanted to proceed with full revocation of tenure while there were lawsuits or maybe they weren't allowed to officially revoke her tenure when there were lawsuits. Don't know. But it took roughly 4 years since Harvard had first been notified there may be fraud to Harvard revoking her tenure and firing her. And that's more on Harvard than it is on overall peer-review.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, science never claims to know the absolute truth of anything and skepticism is essential but it always interests me how tightly people cling to something they know is inherently a pack of lies yet claim it to be the absolute truth because science.

From what I understand, you seem to be saying that because science is changing and revising what it’s saying all the time, that at any given moment it’s all just a pack of lies- especially if you don’t like what it’s saying politically.

And that means you can dismiss any of the latest science you don’t like politically as a pack of lies.

Tell me where I’m going along with my understanding of your position.

 

[BitterPill]

So….you have clearly stated your MAGA issues. Now, how about your focus on the actual subject of the thread. Any opinion on Francesca and Harvard? What do you think? Should it have taken 10 years for her to get caught and lose her tenure?

OK.

I assume Francesca is associated with Harvard simply by using my much-maligned deductive reasoning skill, and if so, she probably belongs in Gitmo, CECOT being far too good.

MAGA.

 

[ClaraD]

Why should anyone care about ONE fraudster in the business school? And what does Harvard have to do with it?

That is my question...how is this on Harvard? She was caught, discredited and Harvard isn't backing her up.

 

[Chomsky]

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?

Well for better or worse, that's the way the process works. That's the way acquiring knowledge works.

We lived for 300 years under Newtonian Mechanics, only to find we needed Max Planck's Quantum Mechanics & Einstein's Relativity. But that's not to say Newtonian Mechanics didn't serve us well until we learned more. And this process still continues 'till this day.

As to this specific fraudulent study, you really can't trust a study until it's been repeated to satisfaction. At least that's my approach. I need to see peer recreation.

 

[TamleeB]

Oh come-on.

There is no specific "scientific process". It's a generic catch all.

Ok…and?

 

[ataraxia]

That is my question...how is this on Harvard? She was caught, discredited and Harvard isn't backing her up.

They're just doing their best to throw $hit against the wall and discredit science and academic institutions- all so they can... oh, I dunno.... go chasing after cat eating Haitians, cancer causing wind turbines, and autism causing vaccines or something.

 

[TamleeB]

Well 2021 it was discovered, the group pulling the data took 2 years to reveal the results in 2023. She was placed on unpaid academic leave starting in 2023 after an 18 month internal probe by Harvard, so likely when the group started pulling data because they were suspicious of her articles, Harvard became aware as well and started an investigation. She was stripped of her professorship and removed from all teaching and research duties at that time. Now she has been officially revoked of tenure and fired.

Why did Harvard take so long after the allegations started coming forth in 2021? Well part of it was a long investigation, part of it was likely that ever since Harvard had put her on academic leave she has had lawsuits against Harvard. I don't know Harvard's policy, but they may have not wanted to proceed with full revocation of tenure while there were lawsuits or maybe they weren't allowed to officially revoke her tenure when there were lawsuits. Don't know. But it took roughly 4 years since Harvard had first been notified there may be fraud to Harvard revoking her tenure and firing her. And that's more on Harvard than it is on overall peer-review.

Actually if I remember correctly her lawsuit against Harvard wasn’t until 2023.

 

[Ikari]

They're just doing their best to throw $hit against the wall and discredit science and academic institutions- all so they can... oh, I dunno.... go chasing after cat eating Haitians, cancer causing wind turbines, and autism causing vaccines or something.

A lot of it is motivated by anti-vax nonsense, there is a need to discredit scientific research and consensus on a whole to push these conspiracy theories. This is their motivation. Also, Trump is in a personal tiff with Harvard ever since Baron was rejected, so if Dear Leader says jump, MAGAs say how high.

 

[Ikari]

Actually if I remember correctly her lawsuit against Harvard wasn’t until 2023.

2023 was when she was put on unpaid academic leave, and that was when she started her lawsuits. 2021 was when the investigations were starting up.

 

[Chomsky]

Thats the journal she published in and I've posted links to them multiple times in this thread and at least once in response to you.

Alright, thank you.

And no, I didn't catch that.

I can see where you have a credible concern. At least in terms of the pre-publication vetting process.

But it was a perpetration of fraud, and the community as a whole caught it. So the community & process worked, and I'm not so sure what the problem or point here is?

 

[TamleeB]

Yeah, one professor was dishonest. Therefore no professors can be trusted.
This logical leap is astounding.

I don’t believe anyone on this thread has said that? Can you offer proof of such?