>As we navigate our academic reserve, it is reasonable to assume that the base rate for intentional deception is very low. But this base rate can lead us astry

>As we navigate our academic reserve, it is reasonable to assume that the base rate for intentional deception is very low. But this base rate can lead us astry if we apply it to life off the academic reserve. That is a bold assumption, given what has been playing out in academia very publicly and messily over the past few years. While it might be plausible that the base rate for outright fraud in academia is still fairly low, the base rate for all forms of deception is likely extremely high, particularly in highly-cited papers with interesting results. There are just so many ways to tweak your analysis that don't feel like lying, but nudge a p-value the right side of 0.05; so many little issues that might crop up during a study that feel too trivial to mention; so many methodological choices that are perfectly reasonable if you just avoid thinking too hard about what you're doing. All too often, it only takes one little inconsequential-seeming shortcut to get the result you want, but that shortcut makes all the difference in the world. Find me an academic who can defend every word they've published without once squirming or cringing and I'll show you a zebra.