Concerning the data duplication issue: look here http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html http://steamtraen.blogspot.c

Concerning the data duplication issue: look here http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-a... (section E). You have two completely different studies with almost identical tables of results. If this is what it looks like, that ought to be a career-ending problem. It is very hard to imagine an accidental explanation, particularly since the lead author stated, in a post that he later deleted but which is archived here http://web.archive.org/web/20170316133823/http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/note-brian-wansink-research http://web.archive.org/web/20170316133823/http://foodpsychol..., that "a master’s thesis was intentionally expanded upon through a second study which offered more data that affirmed its findings with the same language, more participants and the same results". The same results. To two significant figures. In 17 out of 18 cases. Sure. And if you still want to separate out data duplication as being in some way a less serious problem: as a minimum, it means one of those two studies is very likely completely wrong. Concerning "they don't sound like groundbreaking science that's likely to lead to policy changes anywhere": I agree that this work mostly sounds like fluffy BS that you might expect to see in a science fair project. But on the back of his reputation acquired precisely through these studies, the principal author became the leading authority on food policy (especially for school-age children) in the United States.