I'm drawing attention to the irony inherent in both these cases. To wit, a study on dishonesty suffering from dishonesty, and a study on rigor suffering from la

I'm drawing attention to the irony inherent in both these cases. To wit, a study on dishonesty suffering from dishonesty, and a study on rigor suffering from lack of rigor. And sure, mistakes in data analysis are entirely possible. But there are lines to be drawn, always. Ariely and Gino, and now Protzko, Krosnick and company are not in the category of reasonable and honest mistakes. On the other hand, even something with widespread effects such as the mess Excel created for genetics papers is not something that most people would find as deliberate sabotage.