> there could be a vanishingly small cohort of researchers who both operate with integrity and whose CVs are competitive for faculty positions. I think it's fa

> there could be a vanishingly small cohort of researchers who both operate with integrity and whose CVs are competitive for faculty positions. I think it's fallacious to compare the CV "competitiveness" of a falsifying 'scientist' with a legitimate scientist. Not that that's what you were suggesting, but maybe we haven't fully accepted what it means to combine the typical daisy-chained/chain-reaction growth of CV opportunities (one prestigious-looking line item opens a door to one or more others), with cheating offering additional boosts as needed at each step. When an athlete "juices", they can perform with greater strength or endurance. But when a scientist falsifies research, they aren't performing greater science -- they're performing greater CV (and terrible science). Competition for faculty positions shouldn't be CV, but the potential for great science. If an institution wants to use CV as the proxy for science potential, then they have to address that the CV metric is being gamed like crazy, including by falsifying (i.e., terrible) scientists.