4 ms·

But the problem with actual data fabrication is that it is intended to permanently deceive, in this case the whole point was to publish the fact that these data

But the problem with actual data fabrication is that it is intended to permanently deceive, in this case the whole point was to publish the fact that these data were not correct. This is a case where an initial false disclosure (which you seem to think should be taken exactly the same as deliberate, permanent misreporting) is used as a means to bring more verified facts into the world, and zero permanent misinformation; it is no more like false disclosure than pennies are like Moscow Mule mugs.

letitgo12345 8y ago
I don't think this is the same as fabrication with intent to commit actual fraud. But if you're trying to show that the editors are making biased decisions because of preconceived notions, submitting data that supports their notions is not evidence of them making biased decisions. A better study would be the following -- you submit one version of the paper supporting viewpoint X and another supporting viewpoint not X (where X is some issue on which there isn't much research been done so there isn't any sort of consensus on the issue) and fabricate data for both cases. But what they did, all that seems to show to me is that if you fabricate data, you can get a paper accepted. Which is not surprising. Edit: For the record, I do think academia, especially in some areas of humanities, is very biased but this study is just not well done imo.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > But if you're trying to show that the editors are making biased decisions because of preconceived notions, submitting data that supports their notions is not evidence of them making biased decisions. I think you've missed the point of this. > Edit: For the record, I do think academia, especially in some areas of humanities, is very biased but this study is just not well done imo. How? These papers are basically nonsense, but were accepted because they draw conclusions that are vaguely in line with the political whims of the journals, that's the whole point. One simple question it answers is: would journals publish Mein Kampf if men were "the Jews"? It is a qualitative question, not a quantitative one, so it is sufficient to demonstrate that one such paper is published.

letitgo12345 8y ago

I don't think this is the same as fabrication with intent to commit actual fraud. But if you're trying to show that the editors are making biased decisions because of preconceived notions, submitting data that supports their notions is not evidence of them making biased decisions. A better study would be the following -- you submit one version of the paper supporting viewpoint X and another supporting viewpoint not X (where X is some issue on which there isn't much research been done so there isn't any sort of consensus on the issue) and fabricate data for both cases. But what they did, all that seems to show to me is that if you fabricate data, you can get a paper accepted. Which is not surprising. Edit: For the record, I do think academia, especially in some areas of humanities, is very biased but this study is just not well done imo.

microcolonel 8y ago
> But if you're trying to show that the editors are making biased decisions because of preconceived notions, submitting data that supports their notions is not evidence of them making biased decisions. I think you've missed the point of this. > Edit: For the record, I do think academia, especially in some areas of humanities, is very biased but this study is just not well done imo. How? These papers are basically nonsense, but were accepted because they draw conclusions that are vaguely in line with the political whims of the journals, that's the whole point. One simple question it answers is: would journals publish Mein Kampf if men were "the Jews"? It is a qualitative question, not a quantitative one, so it is sufficient to demonstrate that one such paper is published.