4 ms·
Right, and which is perfectly useless to prevent what Stapel did. "We encourage them to make <etc>"? Instead of spending 5 days fabricating coherent data, you s
by roel_v 14y ago
Right, and which is perfectly useless to prevent what Stapel did. "We encourage them to make <etc>"? Instead of spending 5 days fabricating coherent data, you spend 6 - an additional day to come up with a plausible reason for not having to divulge raw data. I'm not a proponent of requiring everybody to submit their lab notes with every paper submission, in fact I have no credible solution to the whole problem at all - but feel-good policies like this are no more than something for editors of a journal to point at later when fraud is found, to be able to say "yeah but we did something" (i.e., the classical politician's fallacy).
- denzil_correa 14y ago> Right, and which is perfectly useless to prevent what Stapel did. Nothing of that sort is claimed; just because you do not have a fool proof method doesn't mean you take limited steps to stop it. The least you can do is put hygiene checks. Most reputed conferences wouldn't even do that. Also, how and why is this a feel-good policy? The program committee of the conference is reputed enough to check for fraud/discrepancies. After all, the Stapel fraud (like many others) was detected by his peers. FYI - this is not a journal either.
- jhdevos 14y agoYou used the phrase 'to eliminate such frauds.' The suggestion (to me) is that this is a fool proof method that eliminates such frauds. I would contend this is not true; fraud is still relatively easy. The question is how much this promotes a false sense of security. Stapel's fraud was only detected after many years, and after his results had been widely published. I still hear some of his conclusions quoted now and then as if it were established truth, by people who have not yet realised that it is one of the famous Stapel ones.
- denzil_correa 14y agoSome clarifications - + No method/suggestion is fool proof in the world of publications; simply can't be + Stapel's fraud was "data fraud" which is eliminated if your work on publicly available datasets + NLP community encourages work on public data and you can't get Stapel level of recognition if you do not have your data/tools out in the open + Any suggestion/method if not fool proof can be said to promote a false sense of security; it is important to start somewhere rather than maintain status quo