4 ms·
It doesn't have to be outright fraud. I imagine the vast majority of manipulations are extremely subtle. Intentional selection bias, multiple hypothesis testing
by jvans 3y ago
It doesn't have to be outright fraud. I imagine the vast majority of manipulations are extremely subtle. Intentional selection bias, multiple hypothesis testing without correction or reporting the failed hypotheses(p hacking). Most of these would improve your chances of finding important results significantly and be almost impossible to detect
- EvgeniyZh 3y agoFor the first argument I can't really speak beyond my field (physics, or specifically condensed matter physics), where I think it's fairly hard to be subtle. Often it's partial data presentation which allows for inverse Occam razor [1] (proposing fancy explaination instead of a simple one), which is why full data publication requirement are important (and seem to happen more). In smaller sub (sub)fields sometimes fraud becomes large enough to self-sustain, like it happened with Majoranas [2,3] but even that kind of self-corrected. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.08284 https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.08284 [2] https://twitter.com/spinespresso/status/1503352928656138241 https://twitter.com/spinespresso/status/1503352928656138241 [3] https://espressospin.org/2022/11/17/the-fallen-angel-particle/ https://espressospin.org/2022/11/17/the-fallen-angel-particl...
- mcpackieh 3y ago> without reporting the failed hypotheses(p hacking). This one is so subtle, it's probable that many of the people doing it don't even realize they're doing something wrong.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]