This is not my field, but I remember that article as completely undermining your claim that “academic rigor” “usually” implies “fraud”. My take on the replicat

This is not my field, but I remember that article as completely undermining your claim that “academic rigor” “usually” implies “fraud”. My take on the replication problem (I’m not a social scientist) is that we now think the original experiments missed a confounding factor out of ignorance or lack of statistical sophistication. This is not how Ariely and Gino were caught, though. I wouldn’t call their research surprising at all (again, not my field), but their randomization failed. Replication should have found a different level of support and introduced skepticism of the rigor of their methodology.