2 ms·
> 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 m
by 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