2 ms·
In 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
by Null-Set 4y ago
In 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.