> IMO the connection was that universities are hesitant to pursue claims of replication problems, plagiarism, etc. when the accused academic is from a preferred

> IMO the connection was that universities are hesitant to pursue claims of replication problems, plagiarism, etc. when the accused academic is from a preferred groups, or has preferred ideologies. But if it wants to make that point it should start by stating the point outright and then follow-on with some sort of supporting arguments. The post brings up Dan Ariely's work that doesn't replicate. So far as I know there's no allegation that this was political -- just plain old self-interest. The only thing it presents is an allegation about some history paper around metallurgy. Which just seems like a bitter association rather than an attempt at evidencing the claim that the majority of academic replication failure is political. The more I reread this the more half-baked and rambly it seems.