> the researchers failed to consider other explanations for the “anomalies” in the data sets analyzed; that Harvard’s investigation into the allegations was “un

> the researchers failed to consider other explanations for the “anomalies” in the data sets analyzed; that Harvard’s investigation into the allegations was “unfair and biased,” and that Harvard’s punishment was “overly harsh” — harsher than similar punishments when male professors were credibly accused of research misconduct. That’s why they reported it to Harvard privately first. It was allegedly to allow them to investigate as well and to find if there is another plausible explanation. During and after the retraction was there any plausible explanation other than fraud?