Study reveals scale of ‘science scam’ in academic publishing

Academia is BROKEN! - Harvard Fake Data Scandal Explained
[29 June 2023] This week a top Professor at Harvard University was exposed for data FRAUD. The evidence is damning, and it is hard to see how Francesca Gino can argue her way out of it. This looks bad for Gino, but also it looks bad for behavioural science in general. She isn't the only example of data fraud in the industry either, so if you want me to cover more of this type of content, let me know in the comments below!

The Articles/Blog Posts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Tm3Yx4HWI


HUGE FRANCESCA GINO DRAMA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNJBS2H8p60
{Pete Judo | 22 November 2023}

Zoe's original post: https://www.theorgplumber.com/posts/statement/

 
Academia is BROKEN! Nobel-Prize Winner with Fake Results (Medicine)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2oW21ac-Lk
{Pete Judo | 21 October 2023}



He almost faked his way to a Nobel-Prize [Physics]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44GilgN6ug0
{Pete Judo | 02 December 2023}

Bobbi-Broccoli's first video on Hendrik: The man who almost faked his way to a Nobel Prize [part 1 of 3]



Literally the worst scientist in history [Medicine]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K29phecU0g8
{Pete Judo | 20 December 2023}

 
Last edited:
Pete Judo's YouTube channel is a good source for material

The BROKEN system at the heart of Academia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxB3yy2H7j4
{Pete Judo | 31 August 2023}



He recently decided to devote his channel to the subject:

I'm done making Behavioral Science videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4A-ntvyaEY
{Pete Judo | 18 November 2023}

I've thought about this for months, and gone back and forth multiple times. Now, I'm at peace with this change. I'm done making behavioral science videos.




Here's one of his videos since he made the switch (a few others were posted earlier):

6 Ways Scientists Fake Their Data
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uqDhQxhmDg
{Pete Judo | 09 December 2023}

Statistics by Jim: What is P Hacking: Methods & Best Practices


 
Another channel of interest: Andy Stapleton

Academia is BROKEN. The systemic issues we can't ignore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUGznJYtXbU
{Andy Stapleton | 05 September 2023}

In the video I share with you the systemic issues of academia that we cannot ignore.

00:00 – paper mills
02:52 – exploitation and anxiety
06:25 – fake data
08:59 – reproducibility crisis
11:25 – wrapping up



The Academic Fraud Epidemic - The Alarming Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0tT2i3TZx8
{Andy Stapleton | 12 December 2023}

From doctored data to manipulated results, learn about the alarming consequences and potential solutions to preserve the integrity of scientific research.

00:00 - Intro
00:46 - What is causing the fraud?
02:37 - Academic Task Force??
03:36 - The Highly Cited Researchers List is amazing
04:21 - Gaming the System
05:46 - PhD's from the dead!
07:57 - Weird Situation
08:34 - Where does this leave us?
10:18 - Conclusion



The Toxic Metric Ruining Academia [Researchers Worst Nightmare]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddo0uVKxKJM
{Andy Stapleton | 21 December 2023}

Discover a controversial metric dictating academic careers, and delve into its profound impact on researchers, shaping the future of research and success.

00:00 - Intro
00:21 - The Index
02:10 - Dividing the scientific community
03:53 - The impact on the hiring process
04:37 - No more critical thinking
06:30 - Can't compare
08:20 - Replacing the H-Index
10:29 - Alt Metric
11:49 - Wrapping Up

 
Study reveals scale of ‘science scam’ in academic publishing

Macho men are to blame.

https://www.newsweek.com/macho-masculine-men-pain-studies-724848
eraxkes.jpg
 
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1749882438938190177
HQYVOI1.png


Harvard teaching hospital to retract papers by top researchers following data falsification probe
https://nypost.com/2024/01/22/news/harvard-teaching-hospital-to-retract-papers-by-top-researchers/
{Emily Crane | 22 January 2024}

[additional matter hidden to save space]
 
A Harvard University-affiliated teaching hospital is seeking to retract or correct dozens of papers authored by four of its top researchers — including the hospital’s CEO — following a probe into allegations of data falsification.

The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston has already initiated six retractions to papers and 31 others are in the process of being corrected, the hospital’s research integrity officer, Dr. Barrett Rollins, confirmed to the Harvard Crimson.

The corrections follow claims of data falsification leveled against the cancer institute’s CEO, Dr. Laurie Glimcher, chief operating officer Dr. William Hahn, director of the Clinical Investigator Research Program Dr. Irene Ghobrial and Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center program director Dr. Kenneth Anderson.

The latest accusations come just weeks after Harvard University president Claudine Gay resigned from her top post after she was embroiled in her own plagiarism scandal.

All four of the Dana-Farber researchers have faculty appointments with the Harvard Medical School.

News of the probe surfaced after a data sleuth, Sholto David, published a blog post earlier this month alleging irregularities in a total of 57 papers.

The exact nature of the retractions or corrections wasn’t immediately known, but the online sleuth had previously alleged elements of “data forgery” tied to discrepancies in images, including duplications of blots, bands and plots.

It also wasn’t clear if the institute had uncovered any evidence of misconduct during its probe.

The hospital’s research integrity officer said that although discrepancies were identified in some of the papers, it didn’t necessarily provide evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.

“That conclusion can only be drawn after a careful, fact-based examination which is an integral part of our response,” Rollins said.

“Our experience is that errors are often unintentional and do not rise to the level of misconduct.”

The institute and the researchers involved took “prompt and decisive action” on the first 37 papers, while the 38th manuscript is still under investigation, according to Rollins.

Of the 19 other papers flagged by David, Rollins said three required no further action and 16 remain under investigation because the data in question were collected in labs that don’t belong to the four researchers.

“Where possible, the heads of all of the other laboratories have been contacted and we will work with them to see that they correct the literature as warranted,” Rollins said.

“We are committed to a culture of accountability and integrity. Every inquiry about research integrity is examined fully.”

Glimcher and the other three researchers didn’t immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.

The Post also reached out to the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

The fresh allegations are just the latest tranche of claims leveled against Harvard-affiliated researchers after the Ivy League school’s president stepped down from her prestigious post following weeks of controversy over her own academic record.

Gay’s academic career came under intense scrutiny after she was hit with nearly 50 accusations of plagiarism or inadequate citation.

The Harvard Corporation, Harvard’s governing board, said a review had turned up a “few instances of inadequate citation” but no evidence of research misconduct.

The board added that Gay would update her dissertation and request corrections.

Top Harvard cancer researchers accused of scientific fraud; 37 studies affected
Researchers accused of manipulating data images with copy-and-paste.
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...used-of-scientific-fraud-37-studies-affected/
{Beth Mole | 22 January 2024}

[additional matter hidden to save space]
 
The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School, is seeking to retract six scientific studies and correct 31 others that were published by the institute’s top researchers, including its CEO. The researchers are accused of manipulating data images with simple methods, primarily with copy-and-paste in image editing software, such as Adobe Photoshop.

The accusations come from data sleuth Sholto David and colleagues on PubPeer, an online forum for researchers to discuss publications that has frequently served to spot dubious research and potential fraud. On January 2, David posted on his research integrity blog, For Better Science, a long list of potential data manipulation from DFCI researchers. The post highlighted many data figures that appear to contain pixel-for-pixel duplications. The allegedly manipulated images are of data such as Western blots, which are used to detect and visualize the presence of proteins in a complex mixture.

DFCI Research Integrity Officer Barrett Rollins told The Harvard Crimson that David had contacted DFCI with allegations of data manipulation in 57 DFCI-led studies. Rollins said that the institute is "committed to a culture of accountability and integrity," and that "every inquiry about research integrity is examined fully."

The allegations are against: DFCI President and CEO Laurie Glimcher, Executive Vice President and COO William Hahn, Senior Vice President for Experimental Medicine Irene Ghobrial, and Harvard Medical School professor Kenneth Anderson.

The Wall Street Journal noted that Rollins, the integrity officer, is also a co-author on two of the studies. He told the outlet he is recused from decisions involving those studies.

Amid the institute's internal review, Rollins said the institute identified 38 studies in which DFCI researchers are primarily responsible for potential manipulation. The institute is seeking retraction of six studies and is contacting scientific publishers to correct 31 others, totaling 37 studies. The one remaining study of the 38 is still being reviewed.

Of the remaining 19 studies identified by David, three were cleared of manipulation allegations, and 16 were determined to have had the data in question collected at labs outside of DFCI. Those studies are still under investigation, Rollins told The Harvard Crimson. "Where possible, the heads of all of the other laboratories have been contacted and we will work with them to see that they correct the literature as warranted,” Rollins wrote in a statement.

Despite finding false data and manipulated images, Rollins pressed that it doesn't necessarily mean that scientific misconduct occurred, and the institute has not yet made such a determination. The "presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author's intent to deceive," Rollins wrote. "That conclusion can only be drawn after a careful, fact-based examination which is an integral part of our response. Our experience is that errors are often unintentional and do not rise to the level of misconduct."

The very simple methods used to manipulate the DFCI data are remarkably common among falsified scientific studies, however. Data sleuths have gotten better and better at spotting such lazy manipulations, including copied-and-pasted duplicates that are sometimes rotated and adjusted for size, brightness, and contrast. As Ars recently reported, all journals from the publisher Science now use an AI-powered tool to spot just this kind of image recycling because it is so common.
 
Last edited:
Alarming: Fraud spreads in Science -- and I fear it will become worse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wN8B1pruJg
{Sabine Hossenfelder | 18 February 2024}

Science has a big problem and it’s been getting rapidly worse in the past two years or so, to no small part because of recent advances in artificial intelligence. Fraudulent papers are getting published more than ever, and the fraudsters are getting increasingly aggressive. In this episode I want to give you an update on the recent developments.

 
New Superconductor Scandal: What We Know So Far
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o2uehTDsco
{Sabine Hossenfelder | 09 April 2024}

Last year, Ranga Dias from the University of Rochester in New York claimed he had found a material that was superconducting at room temperature. He has now been accused of research misconduct. This is a summary of what we know so far.



Regarding the case of Jan Hendrik Schön (mentioned in the video above):

[...]

He almost faked his way to a Nobel-Prize [Physics]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44GilgN6ug0
{Pete Judo | 02 December 2023}

Bobbi-Broccoli's first video on Hendrik: The man who almost faked his way to a Nobel Prize [part 1 of 3]



[...]
 
Of interest from another thread:

I've been looking into the publisher of the research - Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) which is usually described as a predatory academic publisher. This particular paper was one that is often used in pointing out SCIRP's lack of reputability. This study concluded that the number of babies born with thyroid problems in the western United States increased by 16 percent in 2011 compared to 2010, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Beyond what XNavyNuke mentions in his quote, there's something even more basic going on. The study failed to take into account the fact that 2010 was a year with an unusually low number of births with thyroid problems, nor was it even mentioned in the paper. You see, it turns out that, over the course of a few decades, 2011 was a pretty normal year with respect to babies born with thyroid problems - it's 2010 that was the outlier. SCIRP refused to print a letter criticizing the study, but offered to publish it as an article for a charge.

It's a bit like the temperature changes that are quoted for global warming; they usually quote the temperature increase between the start of the industrial age (roughly 1760 - 1840) to the present ... without mentioning what immediately preceded the industrial age (the Little Ice Age ran from 1300 - 1850, so the starting temperatures were lower than what would be considered normal).

Take a look at this story for more great SCIRP-published research. Oh, and yeah, SCIRP is a Chinese-owned publisher.

Another name for these publishers is "Vanity Publisher" ... they're easy to get published in and get to see your name glowing in the proverbial lights. Think of Marquis Who's Who In America.
 
Scientific Progress is Slowing Down. But Why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBT9vFrV6yQ
{Sabine Hossenfelder | 09 May 2024}

We see constant progress in the world every day, from better cars to faster phones to virtual reality and the internet of things. However, despite all the technological and engineering advances, science seems to be slowing down? Let’s have a look.

Paper here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733324000416




See what you get for not trusting the “science”?
 
Back
Top