3 ms·
This is literally how one of the biggest scandals in academic publishing occurred[1], so... no? Maybe it's a nice way to treat experts when asking them for thei
by TheRealPomax 4y ago
This is literally how one of the biggest scandals in academic publishing occurred[1], so... no? Maybe it's a nice way to treat experts when asking them for their opinion, they are experts after all, but we absolutely don't want to give celebrities more leeway than unknowns in research papers where new claims are being made. You better have done the work properly, again, and again, and again. No free passes, no blind trust.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel
- Null-Set 4y agoIn this case it looks like his good reputation was falsified from the start? They were unable to prove misconduct in his dissertation only because the data had been destroyed. So consistently missing his misconduct would be more to blame here than riding on a reputation.
- TheRealPomax 4y agoBut that ignores the years prior where he had enough reputation to be scrutinized less, which lets him publish more, which made him more famous, which got him scrutinized less, allowing him to keep publishing, boosting his reputation, [etc]. Right up to the very end, this man was able to publish like a celebrity because no on questioned it because he was famous. So let's not bake that into the process: scrutinize all papers equally. Experts don't get a free pass, if they have new claims to make, those claims are just as "I don't believe you yet" as anyone else's.