4 ms·

Also: I have not seen evidence of widespread fraud. Evidence of fraud,yes. Evidence of widespread fraud no.

by SubiculumCode 4y ago

mistermann 4y ago
Don't forget though: events proceed evidence, and evidence doesn't always follow events. Also: perception is ~effectively reality.
derbOac 4y ago
That's a fair point, although fraud per se is only a small part of all the problems. There's other forms of corruption than fraud, and a lot of it falls into this zone of plausible deniability rather than outright fraud. Also, I think the problems tend to find most weight with higher concentration of power, so what matters isn't as much "how widespread is corruption?" but rather "how is corruption distributed among power structures in academics and what is rewarded?"
rossdavidh 4y ago
Agreed it's an important point that fraud is only a fraction of the problem.
bhk 4y ago
I have. According to [1], "1 in 4 cancer research papers contains faked data". As the article argues, the standards are perhaps unreasonably strict, but even by more favorable criteria, 1/8 of the papers contained faked data. Interestingly, [2] using the same approach, found fraud in 12.4% of papers in the International Journal of Oncology. More broadly, [2] found fraud in about 4% of the papers studied (782 of 20,621). I'd say that's pretty widespread, but you further have to consider that these papers focused narrowly on a very specific type of fraud that is easy to detect (image duplication), so we would expect the true number of fraudulent papers to be much higher. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/study-claims-1-in-4-cancer-research-papers-contains-faked-data/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/study-claims-1-in-4-... [2] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/04/20/049452.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/04/20/049...

4 ms·

Also: I have not seen evidence of widespread fraud. Evidence of fraud,yes. Evidence of widespread fraud no.

by SubiculumCode 4y ago

Also: I have not seen evidence of widespread fraud. Evidence of fraud,yes. Evidence of widespread fraud no.

mistermann 4y ago
Don't forget though: events proceed evidence, and evidence doesn't always follow events. Also: perception is ~effectively reality.
derbOac 4y ago
That's a fair point, although fraud per se is only a small part of all the problems. There's other forms of corruption than fraud, and a lot of it falls into this zone of plausible deniability rather than outright fraud. Also, I think the problems tend to find most weight with higher concentration of power, so what matters isn't as much "how widespread is corruption?" but rather "how is corruption distributed among power structures in academics and what is rewarded?"
rossdavidh 4y ago
Agreed it's an important point that fraud is only a fraction of the problem.
bhk 4y ago
I have. According to [1], "1 in 4 cancer research papers contains faked data". As the article argues, the standards are perhaps unreasonably strict, but even by more favorable criteria, 1/8 of the papers contained faked data. Interestingly, [2] using the same approach, found fraud in 12.4% of papers in the International Journal of Oncology. More broadly, [2] found fraud in about 4% of the papers studied (782 of 20,621). I'd say that's pretty widespread, but you further have to consider that these papers focused narrowly on a very specific type of fraud that is easy to detect (image duplication), so we would expect the true number of fraudulent papers to be much higher. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/study-claims-1-in-4-cancer-research-papers-contains-faked-data/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/study-claims-1-in-4-... [2] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/04/20/049452.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/04/20/049...