Thanks for watching guys. The deeper I look into the academic discipline, the more broken parts I find. So will be talking more about this in future. But this is not all I am passionate about. Behavioural science has a lot of good scientists and really interesting ideas. So videos on both the good and bad in the future.
Thanks man. Love your videos. Would love to hear your thoughts on the recent story with the climate scientist Patrick T Brown titled "I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published".
I totally agree that there are LOTS of good scientists and interesting ideas out there. But I think the issue is that most people nowadays see science as a "truth," not "way to find the truth." So videos like this are VERY needed! But as a fellow nerd, I strongly agree too, to post both good and bad :)
@@damullethe author is making big statements out of thin air. He quote "didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors" to make a review (according to his own opinion) easier. And then after leaving academia he suggests that he could cover other factors better. First, it is his fault. A lot of great papers cover all different reasons for climate change from change in solar activity to volcanoes to show anthropogenic contribution. Second, he didn't even try to submit a paper "not following the trend" so he had zero proof, as experiments cannot be done like that.
the real problem is Peer Reviewing. Especially for experimental science. In the vast majority of papers, peer reviewing cannot be done for cognitive and time limits. It follows that scientific publications are not validated in any way. And together with ranking of research, of university, etc are just a tool of academic power.
@@2021philyou and what do you suggest to use for study validation instead of peer review? Most scientific papers in decent journals are validated by checking methodology and, if applicable, how close the results are described by existing laws and previous publications. And 1% of cheaters are going to exist all the time.
Yeesh, when your PhD adviser has you write up your thesis using their own data that they provide for you instead of having you develop your own hypothesis, methodology, and collected set of data, you know that's a huge red flag!
The whole point of a PhD program is for students to learn to find data, develop hypotheses, develop methods of testing the hypotheses. Cranking the advisor’s data is not enough.
This varies a lot by discipline. My PhD is in Epi, and it was almost unheard of for any PhD student to collect their own data, since the discipline is more focused on complex methods, analytic design, and utilizing big data (as in tens of thousands of observations, which would be unrealistic for any PhD student's first foray into data collection).
It scares me how brazen and blatant most publicized cases of study fraud look. Raises the question of whether more sophisticated attempts are truly rare or a halfway intelligent fraudster just never gets caught.
Im currently an engineering PhD student. I obviously don't commit fraud, but doing so would be trivially easy. I deal with hundreds/thousands of samples and can add/remove them as I please. It's scary to see how easy it is, so I'm sure most fraud is never caught. The biggest preventor of fraud, in my anecdotal experience, is the constant interaction with your advisor who would notice if your bad data suddenly started looking good.
@@brentedgerton9469 One may be "lucky" to publish a study based on fake data, but the journey does not end there. A decent study usually includes intercomparison with other results and models, in which fake data is going to fail (maybe in future studies fraud will be revealed). For data to be looking good, one should also understand the laws behind those observations, which is not that common, especially for young scientists. Therefore, sure, it is not hard to present fake data, but why doing so? =)
Videos like this really opened my eyes that I'm not crazy honestly... for my undergraduate thesis, I used someone's paper as a reference... i kept counting and counting but the number was just wrong.... i tried to email them, no answer too. I told my professor and he said "this has been peer reviewed, so yours the one might be wrong, check it again". Like I swear, I count it like 20+ times probably.. :") i ended up using my own calculation for my undergrad thesis but yeah, thanks for making videos like this!!
Peer review is not designed to check all numbers (but it is possible). It is designed to check validity of methods used in the paper and adequacy of conclusions made based on the results. If someone's calculations are wrong, well, it's bad, but it can be fixed by reporting the error in future publications or correcting the original paper. Nothing is wrong in making mistakes. Wrong results eventually just won't be cited well. In brief, your supervisor is wrong in understanding what a peer review is.
@@asumazilla not really. The student checked the results many times before asking his supervisor. And the supervisor recommended checking the results even after claiming that peer review assumes that all numbers were checked. Which is not what peer review is responsible for=)
Most papers have a number of inaccuracies, some of them fundamental. First, there's no reason to think they were all fraudulent, second if you think there's something wrong with a paper you can write to the editor of the journal that published the work. You can handle paper corrections or inaccuracies that way.
None of the above. He should have been trying to find data to draw a hypothesis from. Anytime you start with a solution and try to work backward, you will end up somewhere that doesn't exist - which is exactly what happened to him.
Um, spacewater7, do you remember in middle school learning about the scientific method and they would ask you to write a hypothesis first? That's because a hypothesis comes before any testing. It's not a hypothesis if you're looking at the data already gathered, then it's a conclusion.
No one in academia is ever trying to prove anything. Theories cannot be proven in science, they can only disproven. Academics try to theorize something based on data. No one is trying to prove anything, except religious people; they are pretty driven to prove their book correct.
@@duetopersonalreasonsaaaaaa Apparently your education was rather tainted with Newthought? Explains a lot of what's wrong with 'science' these days. Speaking of Newspeak, Science is now considered a proper noun apparently, and people can identify as it, or change in and out of it, like a gender, or a lab coat. Fascinating! But perhaps you and your unfortunate classmates should study some Greek philosophy, to unwash your mind? Thanks for bringing up this excellent example of how things became the way they are going. Remember though, just because you see something on TV, or read it in a newspaper, or even a textbook - it doesn't mean that it's true.
This is what happens when nobody bothers trying to replicate previous studies, an essential part of the scientific method. General rule of thumb: it's not real until it replicates.
I feel proof of replication with another lab and third party verification of the data analysis needs to be the new standard for publication. It's not going to stop fraud but it will stop fraud like this
In the US, every research institution is required to have a Research Integrity Officer, who is the *only* person you should go to with suspicions of academic fraud. Bringing it up with the suspected person just gives them a chance to cover their ass or throw someone else under the bus.
In the US, there have been cases of the institution then going straight to the accused warning them anyway about the impending investigation and investigating committee members having conflicts of interest (example: the initial investigation into Eric Stewart by FSU.)
That’s like saying “Take your problem straight to HR” - who can then work with management and legal to limit the damage to the institution, including just covering things up.
See response of doctorlolchicken. Any internal board is likely to act as a coverup. Just look at what happened with Stanford University last president. Or almost all others in this channel. Or to all those who accepted hoax papers in the grievance studies. Nothing.
Thats how abusive personalities survive. They isolate those under them. They acuse others of their crimes, they play the victim's. And only when they know they are cooked do they then admit things and fall back on playing the victim.
@@jesipohl6717 But there are metascientific results showing that the average researcher does not understand her own methods and has forgotten about basic first-year statistics concepts. Do you mean to say that we should dramatically cull the herd until only a smaller, more elite sample of scientists remain? I would be all for that, because metascience also shows that most papers never get cited and most scientists never contribute anything, except... ... Except, who can we count on to perform the culling in an even-handed, meritocracy-maximizing way? Isn't part of the problem that everything from admissions offices to faculties to grants committees and editorial boards put various other concerns ahead of scientific integrity? It's hard to identify any one part of the system that we can really solidly lean on and use as a measuring stick for the rest.
The obvious answer is to publish all data sets with the discarded data. How we would enforce that is, of course, an exercise for the reader. But if you can't check all the data, the paper might as well be hearsay.
@@robertbeisert3315 I somewhat agree. I believe that in behavioral sciences, it should be mandatory for researchers to publish the precise data processing and data analysis steps, along with the raw data. I mean the exact steps that were done after extracting the raw data. Easiest option would be to publish the code for R, SPSS, or such, that was used. A lot of scientists work with software where you only have to press around, e.g. Excel to process data. In that way, no one from the outside can trace how you arrived at the final data you analyze and then how you arrived at the results you claim.
@@robertbeisert3315stillbaffles me that for a thesis no one will read you have to give them your data/code, but apparently not if you wosh to publish thus efficting the entire community
I really wonder how many of these academics have not been caught, because the ones that did get caught, did really stupid stuff. Using the same data set for multiple studies, writing the name of the university instead of the year, getting duplicate numbers of the subjects,... It makes me think that anyone who's just a little bit better at covering their tracks would not be caught.
I'm concerned about how many studies were built off of the fraud studies, and the fake data just kept building up because no one wanted to admit it couldn't be replicated.
There are several studies, where researchers were anonymously asked if they ever faked their data. The fraction was around 1%. Of course, it is easy to fake anything including data. But 99% of researchers do their science to find the real unknown answer and to improve their skills. On the most levels having some striking results is not a requirement, no correlation is often just fine.
@@markhall2414 there is a fraction of retracted papers (small fraction of percent) and an estimate of researchers fraction who ever cheated (1%). That's what we have. When bad papers are becoming highly cited, there is a good chance to reveal the errors or cheating. There is no proof that this is a systematic problem. And there is a reason why such stories mostly occur in disciplines where it's easy to cheat (behavioural science).
@@markhall2414 yes, most probably. That's why the fraction of cheating is so much higher than the fraction of retracted papers. In most of the fields cheating also requires a good understanding of the topic, as one should understand what would be the expected pattern following some physical law.
@@markhall2414 this most often happens with data-mining, whenever I read "let the data speak for itself" that's code for, "maybe we did some data mining and tried some analyses and stat-tests till it worked, we didn't correct for multiple tests though, cause the data told us not to..." "Data-directed research" is something I am always skeptical of.
I once was a tutor for a group of smart students who wanted advices on how to do some experiments on which I was an expert. But their time and budget was so tiny that in the end the experiment they made had lost relavance. To my great surprise, they ended wit significant results and they got a good grade at their university. When I proposed them to publish their data, they told me they chose to fabricate everything because the raw data were meaningless. I was shocked. They were smart. They were a group, not an individual let alone with his décisions. The pressure on their shoulders was very mild because even with negative results they would have got their degree. Despite all of this they decided to cheat. Cheating when the risk of being coutch is small and the punishment would be mild IS THE PREFERES OPTION of most people. Even the smartest ones.
Thought about it once. It was an engineering project that couldn't be done - not enough ports to handle the data I/O required. But the only evidence asked for was a video we could totally fake. We sided with honesty and failed the major assignment. Passed the class and got the degree, though.
One of my Med school friends did this. Two of them sat up all night filling out a few hundred survey forms using a variety of pens etc. I myself did hard science. Through the first 3 years of my degree I always knew what the result of an 'experiment' should be, including what amount and kind of noise to expect in the data so it often got fabricated to speed things along. I actually think it was a good way to learn and helped when I did do my thesis (which involved collecting genuine field data). In a similar vein, my favourite school teacher was one who just wrote out notes longhand on a blackboard for us to copy down. It kept the class quiet and efficiently conveyed the required knowledge. When I described this to an Education lecturer he huffed and puffed about 'learning by doing'. The guy had no conception that that knowledge had taken generations of 'learning by doing' to accumulate.
smart, intelligent, genius. these are all just fluid concepts. i have a few defined. but just to clarify, our belief that someone is "smart" is an expectation of them or their "ability", not their actual outcome.
You are slowly turning into the Coffeezilla who covers Academic Fraud. You and that Broccoli guy should team up to make the next big hitpiece doc. All in all, thank you for this stuff and for bringing light into an often neglected section of academia. As entertaining as this is, it is important that people become more cognizant of this phenomenon.
Wasn’t there something similar in Alzheimers research when one researcher mislead an industry for many years who wasted funds and years trying to find therapies based on this researcher’s findings but later it was found that this researcher’s work could not be replicated and his approach was abandoned.
He was president of Stanford University and ran several labs. None of his studies were replicated successfully, and whistle-blowers exposed the outright fraud. Billions of dollars in research were based on his lies, and he skated with a golden parachute.
Yup , and to make matters worse his papers was one of the most cited papers *ever* , so easily billions (if not more ) in research went to trash in less than a week
That’s an atrocity, speaking as someone who has had a beloved family member afflicted with this dread disease. Consequences like that to public health really ought to merit criminal penalties. It’s worse than murdering a person, because millions could be harmed by his actions. I’m speaking hypothetically, though, only knowing what you just recounted.
I just finished reading “Science Fictions” by Stuart Ritchie, and Diederik makes an appearance. It’s a great book that goes into a lot of depth about these kinds of issues. The academic and publishing culture and incentives take center stage in his critique, I think you’d really like the book. Ritchie is also a psychologist, and many of the examples he draws come from his field.
@@homeless5913his entire attitude. He proudly states that the data he got from the field didn't match his intended results, THEREFORE faking the results was the right and logical thing to do.
@@jwentingspot on. This professor blamed people first and now after getting caught, he's being regarded as upfront. What a load of garbage. He's only "upfront" and honest cuz he got caught!
He should go to JAIL!! He intentionally STOLE MONEY and COMMITTED FRAUD!!! What the hell?!?! NO!!! Just because he’s “refreshingly honest?!” No he will have real world consequences!!!
I know, I hate how these academic fraud cases are never treated like financial fraud, even though they are often using public funding to carry out this research. I don't see how this is any different than lying to investors about sales/profit, which usually comes with several years of prison.
Not to mention the potential harm created by spreading falsified information. Its impossible to quantify but this person literally set us back years to decades in understanding. Beyond selfish.
I just finished a paper on a VR (Virtual Reality) experience that I use to teach radioactivity at university, I found that the tool works and is quicker to tell the facts... but several side studies are inconsistent... I didn't find if playing video games had an effect on the information that they took from the VR experience. I checked several improvements and looked if they play video games or not, and I found... inconsistencies, I couldn't find any relationships... so my original thesis crumbled... I know that the problem is some of the students that I give the questionaries don't understand the questions... because after talking with those students, I started to recognize a pattern: the students that increase higher their grades are the ones that read more books, but a few personal interviews are not data... so now I am improving the VR experience, to make new questionaries, to test on students in several universities... So, I don't know why some people want to have exceptional results in every paper, I want to continue the research and make a better approach every time.
Ok so one problem that I see is “getting your data from the advisor”. As a PhD student myself I would NEVER accept any data from a professor. There are valid and reliable online data sources like ESS, but the purpose of getting a PhD is to experience the whole process from setting up studies, taking measurements, analyzing the data and writing the dissertation.
For the most basic ergonomics diagnosis at an office, my undergrar team had to fill oit individual sheets and record videos of over 50 employees. 10 years later, I still have those cards inside a box in my room. It is ridiculous that a PhD does not have that amount of proof to substantiate his research and people believe it to be an awesome researcher. Yes. These people get obsessed with finding in the world what they WANT to find. That is why I can't trust science anymore. Because it predertermines the outcome first, and then invents the data to prove that predetermined outcome.
The power of science is not one paper... or one results. It is repeating the experiment and using that data. In simple terms trust in the number of citations (ignore self citations). That man could get away because he was in a soft science... where there is little interest to repeat his experiment. In biochemistry. if you do X, Y, Z, you get result A. Everyone nods and repeat X, Y, Z because they want to use A for their own work. If they cannot get A, you will soon know about it. And if you cannot guide them to get A, you will find your paper receiving no citations. And it will be buried under obscurity and forgotten.
I remember this. It was on the news quite a lot. Definitely put a dent in my trust in social science research. Now years later, I've learned that quite a few 'high profile' research findings in social science have replication problems or the author thinks their study has a problem in some way and they doubt their findings. So many things that are put in books as a truth are doubtful. It makes me sad. I love reading about social science, but I don't like it when I need to worry about if the studies written about are based on decent science or not. I would love it if you talk about scientists/ authors and books that are still trustworthy and based on good science.
I'm sorry to break it to you but all science fields have issues like that. Like medicine and biology there are people literally (badly) photoshopping their pictures of cells or fudging around with their staining images. In CS and AI people just overtraining train models tweaking them learing to results that literally say nothing in comparison to other papers. In physics you had the "Schön scandal" were data was fabricated. Acadenics are people. And other people working on unreasonable pressure to excel and produce. This doesn't bread honestly and there will always be bad apples. Thats why there is so much debate about the peer review process and people pushing towards open science etc. It's difficult to spot fraude sometimes even when you have a highly trained eye often also because of a lack of time.
@@mignonhagemeijer3726 Ahh, even more saddening :p I think you're right about the pressure applied to scientists, especially the ones teaching at universities. The system should change.
Part of the problem is that data made up to fit fake hypotheses often tells a more interesting tale than the real data. It’s hard for people to let go of, even when the scientist themself is out there telling people they were wrong. It happened with the researcher who came up with the alpha wolf theory-he came by his results honestly, and later realized he was wrong, but no one wants to listen to his corrections. It happened with Andrew Wakefield, who faked an entire body of work, and now far too many people think vaccines cause autism. The good news is that if you come up with a study that goes viral, it doesn’t matter whether you did it right. Even if you’re exposed and you lose your reputation, your credentials, and your job, you can still get rich fleecing the people who believe you. Sure, you might destroy tens of thousands of lives. But what’s that next to a guaranteed, and huge, income?
From a more Art, Literature and Design background, the problems with Social Sciences are the Believers that it is close to Natural Sciences. One, society changes. A great study five years, may not be replicable just because the times change. Two, humans actions and desires lie between art and science. Three, people are different and don't fit neatly in a lable.
Even in his apology, he's lying. Stapel wasn't obsessed with finding an explanation for certain phenomena: he was obsessed with obtaining academic status and research funds. The guy's a typical sociopath.
I wouldn’t say it’s sociopathic, just a simple reality of research that’s very much present and needs to be acknowledged. This kind of stuff if why I got kind of annoyed with all of the sociology courses I took as a minor in college while getting a psychology degree. The field of sociology is ESPECIALLY hypocritical when it comes to this reality, where they will call out the selfish and flawed pursuits in effectively every aspect of society, but do so while making the most absolutely USELESS and academia bait research imaginable. Their research either makes such broad claims about society that asks for sweeping changes to massive systems that are unfounded, unimaginable, or untested, say absolutely nothing at all with buzzwords and semantics with no real data or facts (effectively just someone’s political opinion), or they tackle something with such a hyper specific viewpoint that it proves nothing, misses/misinterprets critical information, or nothing would ever be done about it by anyone in power. All the while sucking up so much money in salaries, research grants, publications, university and lab space, book deals, and political pandering. All while taking massive research trips to foreign countries that are effectively research based sabbaticals, taking people and research assistants away from actually critical studies, and exploiting the lives of impoverished locals for papers ands posts that are effectively just “poverty p***”. All of this to teach and further some of THE MOST USELESS majors in the entire collegiate system that have very little direct translation to the working world, research or otherwise.
Yeah, I might sympathize with the temptation to eliminate outliers in data because you think it's noise. But that's not even what happened here. He never even visited the train station (or any of those buildings) to conduct the experiment. The data is 100% made up! It's very disingenuous to try and pass that off as massaging data because nature won't cooperate. He never even asked nature!
@@azearaazymoto461 Pretty hard actually, even a simple paper can take months, you forget that you have to actually get people in seats for that, train staff on how to administer tests, do screening sessions and forms that have to be sorted through to confirm that people don’t have a condition that would cause them to be excluded, get everything approved by review boards, get funding for any and all supplies and staff, etc.
If the wikipedia page is correct about this decade-old case, his graduate students indeed rarely saw the raw data, and rarely conducted an actual experiment. That would make it a very, very unusual lab. It's much more common for a lab head in a big lab to have no contact with raw data at all (often down to not even knowing exactly where to find it). So there are usually checks and balances in place that make scientific fraud difficult for senior scientists. It's more often done by a "lone wolf" at a lower level, who is involved in data collection (eg a graduate student under pressure to finish their thesis and establish a successful career trajectory). The most important check is replication. When an important finding is published, other scientists generally rush to reproduce the experiment, often with even better methods. If they can't get similar results, the credibility of the original work and its authors is damaged. They will likely have a harder time getting research funding and getting pubished. With open data becoming a more common requirement, fraud will become even harder for the very small number of scientists who might contemplate it.
Wow. Somewhat caught lying/committing fraud that lead them to prominence who doesn't double down on lying and ego, admitting they were wrong, not blaming others and trying to burn everything down, and taking responsibility for their actions and mistakes. There is hope. Thanks for this content.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines" I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” Marcia Angell
@Divergent_Integral Well said ... I think Chicken Little @chicken29843 didn't read far enough to know I was quoting the Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine; and chicken little brain thought that I was making a personal judgement statement.
😂 you’re not alone. But honestly, doesn’t the way the world is functioning say everything to affirm that that’s how you have to act to gain status or power? We work for a living because we rather be capable of honesty and conscientiousness than be screwups ruining society with a death of a thousand cuts. Keep it up and don’t be like them.
@@anacondalove1423Science is a sacred practice of the west, and it should be treated as such. On top of that, this would be a great dissuader of any academics thinking of getting their hands dirty. It should absolutely be criminalized, because fraud is fraud no matter what kind and by definition fraud is harmful to others
@@anacondalove1423it's fraud, mate. It not only defrauds the funders by providing them false results for their money, but any follow-up research becomes more expensive and difficult due to the falsehood. See also: the hundreds of papers and billions in research on Alzheimer's based on the fraudulent Stanford study
Very well done video. One of the first things that my Phd supervisors told me was to form a conclusion based on data, not to form data based on a conclusion. A honest research that shows insignificant results is much better than a dishonest (manipulated) research with groundbreaking results. I think many people fall into the same issues as this professor here. He wanted shocking and groundbreaking results, and willingly manipulate his data to support his conclusions. Unfortunately, the same can be said to many people in academia that I know (even though they did not manipulate the data, but they use unsuitable research methods to get what they want).
Please become the coffeezilla for academic fraud I love the way you portray these stories. Academia is full of pretense and people who think theyre intellectually superior which often leads to high levels of insecurity.
With all of this data fraud coming to light, both past and present, what oversight techniques have journal editors put in place? Would love to hear your take and/or your findings on that across various academic fields. I think submitting de-identified data sets to a journal would be a start.
Good one. So glad you are doing this. The system cares more about money and ego then the science itself. This dynamic permeates throughout the rest of modern society too. It's gotten pretty disgusting.
According to a Post Doc from Delhi U, some research groups publish a paper every few months, which for the kind of research, amount of resources, reviews and check ups involved are absolutely unrealistic. Forcefully, some of those papers have to be fake; some of them are indeed fake and the students know, yet they are powerless to do anything against it.
I'm a Psychology student here at Tilburg University and he is really a great example of how not to do science. And Marcel Zeelenberg is even my Professor in Economic Psychology... I didn't knew that he know him so well, he didn't told us that
Your content is so refreshing. Pulling back the curtin on academia is so important, and hopefully, it will change the system long term. Unfortunately, until then, who can we believe. They have lost the public trust, and that is crime.
The fact that a few people are charlatans doesn’t destroy the entire field. There will always be a few charlatans, and they’ll always take too long to be unmasked. That’s how humans are. Doesn’t matter what the field is. The main thing is to remember that if something is deeply satisfying, it’s probably either fake or spun so hard that it might as well be fake. That’s true in news, in gossip, in history, and in academia. The clear, easy-to-understand, satisfying stories are wrong. The muddled, unfinished, slightly confusing stories with lots of outliers and no clear answers are probably correct.
"For unknown reasons, their reports were dismissed." That right there? That treatment of people who overcame the fear of a very real possibility of their advisor retaliating against them? That's why fraud continues.
This brings the name Michael Mann from the Pennsylvania State University to mind. I wonder how many areas there are where fraud has shaped public perceptions of "truth" found through science?
Even the studies we just accept are weird beyond words. "We made children afraid of rats and then showed them rats and that's why we know about the fear response." Im sorry but did you say you tormented children for science?
"There's something about the environment, the publication pressure." Said no firefighter / oil rig worker / triage nurse ever. Does Stapel have the faintest idea of how narcissistic this sort of lament makes him look? And would still make him look *even if he had never committed academic fraud?*
How much pressure is put on researchers by the funders to produce certain results? How much pressure is put on to ignore the answers the funders do not like? Conflicts of interest should be excluded from any research - the Masters could have too much influence (?).
It’s going to be worst now to detect fraud with AI and since anyone can use Google Map Streetview and photos to see most locations in the world. I was able to virtually walk the grounds of The Taj Mahal without ever visiting India from my home on Lake Erie.
Quite frankly, I now have doubts about most so-called academic research findings. We are lied to daily about a range of things and nobody either cares enough or takes the time to check the results. The hockey stick is the perfect example.
how the heck does the study in Utrecht station get accepted and published? if you are talking about how people say at a bench the minimum requirement from is to have a photo of the benches itself(to show how messy they were). How did that even get past reviewers???
I wonder if the students who got their PhD's on false data, got to keep their PhDs? I hope they did since they were victims. OTOH, they didn't get the full practice of other students.
Separate data collection from data analysis and interpretation. For example, if your lab run a serie of experiments, you can only publish the methodology and the data. You can not write an abstract, result or conclusion. Once the data is in the public domain, anyone can analyze and interpret your data into another paper, but you will be given lead authorship. However, you can not collaborate with the interpretors of your data. Once this analysis is published, you can then choose to agree or disagree with the analysis.
His honesty afterwards isn't something to value in my opinion. The only reason he's being so honest is because he was so obviously committing fraud that he couldn't deny it. Because he admits it, he now gets to write books and give speeches about his story so that he can make money off of his infamy. Not really that admirable.
I find it so incredibly disappointing that he made almost 60 false papers, and is only ranked 7th, always nice to be reminded that there is no bottom bar to the trash, and you can never set your expectations low enough
Having witnessed academic fraud at my university amongst PhD students and supervisors, I've lost some faith in science, once a passion of mine in pharmaceutics. I nearly was accepted for a PhD but it was a blessing in disguise. I'm now on a completely different career path.
I have no sympathy with him whatsoever. Why would you make up data to support a narrative of racial hostility. Its damaging for cases where there are genuine racial prejudice, and it’s stoking controversy for his own status. It’s despicable behaviour and he is only sorry he got caught.
A major problem is the grant providers expect satisfactory results for their money. Writers understand the importance of producing what is expected. The grant process is in control of "science". Ordinary citizens should have the opportunity to read studies that are publically funded to see for themselves what the government plans to do.
The field of data science is filled with this issue of the desired results outweighing the messy data and real world data in particular being contrary to preconceived notions.
"for some reason" the reports didn't go anywhere? Yea, because university administration do not care to investigate any claim the findings of which might hurt their precious reputation.
I'm a math student and I'd like to know if it is even possible to commit this kind of fraud in pure math fields. I know cases of professors literally stealing research, but I a mathematical work is just right or wrong. You can't fake it so much. Can anyone help me?
Good point. And that is why most of such (extremely rare) frauds mostly occur outside of mathematics or physics. While in less accurate fields of study, there is a trend to have open-access datasets, which also helps.
Refreshing. That's what I was thinking. Let him be the guide for the many, many scandals that WILL be uncovered in the near future. I have a feeling, Pete, that you're going to be getting more material for your videos than you'll know what to do with.
Love the vids. I’m a physicist who lives in the world of publish a parish and all that. Never once in my life have I considered fabricating results. It’s hard to imagine.
I understand some of the dutch culture that allowed him to act like that in the aftermath, but he ruin PhD lifes .. like the effort to build a first milestone in their careers
This may be a stupid question, but how are those studies approved? In human studies and medical studies, there is a lot of IRB requirements and approval. Is it that different when it comes to behavioral science? You can just observe people on a train station?
Stapel's excuse is he cheated because doing real science is too difficult. You know, like shoplifters who steal because cigarettes and filetmigon are too expensive. Freeman Dyson said he did not like the PhD system because it entices students, who have neither the interest nor talent to perform meaningful research, into work for which they are unsuited. He is right. Every podunk university in the US operate a doctoral degree mill, furiously churning out PhDs in a litany nonsensical fields, e.g. Nursing, Gender Studies, etc. This glut of poorly educated, unaccomplished , and supremely entitled faux-academics expect employment and compete for the limited resources giving rise to the mania for publishing simple flashy stories. The solution is to reduce doctoral programs by 90% and to stop funding inept researchers. Emphasize quality over quantity and merit over identity and the fraud problem will disappear.
you should focus more on the whole academic system than on single cases. If 90% of professors knows that peer review is a fraud as it is never done, but still get to enjoy the benefit of advancing each other careers, than the issue is larger than the single cases.
I completely understand where Stapel is coming from. But I didn’t until after the financial crisis of 2008. I always did data analytics involving customers, but in 2011 I was forced to do loss forecasting, which for large US banks is heavily regulated - now. See, prior to 2008 the situation in banking was like academia, people wanted clean simple stories that reinforced what they believed. Provide what people want to hear and get promoted, don’t and get fired. I was surprised to find that now we had to get independent third parties to check all our analyses. It’s a major pain in the ass. So naturally I didn’t understand what the point was. Yes, people can make mistakes, but any data scientist with any experience is not going to make mistakes big enough to matter. Your mistake might throw your estimate off by a few million, but this is billions of dollars - the bank pays more than that for printer ink. However, what I eventually realized is that all this is because people were faking results. Essentially, executives think the answer should be no more than $100bn, so the data scientists would manufacture results that came to $100bn. To some extent the “provide the answers we expect” mentality still exists because the execs convinced the feds that it was all data scientists’ fault (no doubt while playing golf) so the fed came after the low level “criminals” rather than addressing the root cause of the problem- much like academia today.
Excellent as always, but I agree with others here that the stock photos are very distracting. I actually closed my eyes to just listen to you speaking.
Isolating students is a huge red flag to me. (Been there, done that - and thankfully managed to get out.) This is the way toxic supervisors get you to do anything they want, by making you feel completely alone, making you believe that everyone else is your enemy. When whatever idea or valued criticism you bring to the supervisor is immediately dismissed, many people will eventually give up and do as told. Or pimp up or fabricate date just to get them off your back. Sure, the whole system of academia is broken. The way funding works might be the main reason behind the fraud cases that have been popping up left an right these last few months. But the loss of community in science might also be a big contributor.
Does anybody have any idea why data fraud occurs in academics? Could it be that those professors have to keep up with their publishing requirements? Like in my country prof/dr has to publish a certain amount of paper/book per year to keep their title.
Isn't that obvious? If you actually do the black white person messy clean train station experiment you 1. Gotta do the work. It's effort. It takes time. Sitting there waiting n watching. Cleaning and messing up the station 2. You are not guaranteed an eye catching result. Things might be inconclusive. Meh. If you just make the whole thing up you get your interesting or even sensational result without sitting at a train station for hours.
I think all reports and papers need to be peer reviewed before they can be submitted to _ANYONE_ . At anytime. Even full professors should have to have their papers peer reviewed first before it can be submitted or published. _No exceptions_ at all on any level.
@@metalslegendOne of my supervisors(and head of life sciences at my former university) conspired with my examiner (first year annual review) to fail me. My other supervisor didn't know how to use the FEA software that he was supposedly an "expert" in. I have (substantial) evidence for both statements mentioned. I even have a video recording of one academic (she gave me consent to record our conversation) admitting that the "expert" doesn't know how to use the software (she left the university one month later, to another country). The university, like the liars that they are, sided with the "academics". My PhD ended last October, after calling them out for not doing anything 3 months (and pretending as if nothing happened, despite the amount of complaints I was making - and the severity of the complaints).I was alienated for over 3 months until I finally had enough and called them out. Less than 24 hours later, I lost my PhD, they stated it was "due to failing my first year annual review".
Here's an email (without names) asking for help: I am writing to you concerning my university. There have been several incidences that have occurred that strongly suggest that the university has no laws or regulation - and can do whatever they please if it means protecting their own best interests - without caring at all about their own policies or even the law. My email relates to my university (to my best understanding) showing clear signs on hiding and not caring about bullying and harassment, discrimination, fitness to practice processes, procedural irregularities, research supervision (or lack thereof), poor teaching provision and facilities, unfair practices, and a clear neglect of welfare. I should also add that I do have an ombudsman looking at this situation (after my level 3 complaint failed - which didn’t consider any of the racist claims, that I have proof of, due to it being a “HR issue”. I have not been given a date for when HR will tell me about what is going on either. In fact, the level 3 outcome read as if no effort was put into it, despite several delays: 4 delays, with no reasons given). On the 27th September, I email the dignity team (I have evidence of this in a pdf file) with more information about what I am complaining about. I didn’t get a reply until the 11th October (2 weeks later) stating that there are issues with what I wrote and that it isn’t clear what I am complaining about and how it relates to dignity I have evidence of this in a pdf file). I would, normally, be patient with regards to these things if something similar didn’t happen with my level 3 submission - the complaints team clearly stalled (I submitted only to be told - three weeks later - it isn’t correct… Even though there’s a 10-day deadline to submission, this can all be seen in the pdf file I have) to “subtly” tell me that the person whom I had a meeting with regarding my level 2 complaint wasn’t at fault for the laughable level 2 complaints procedure that occurred. The meeting is also recorded (by that person). This enraged me because - since submitting my level 1 complaint - I have been wanting my PhD to resume back to a normal manner, because the wait has caused me significant distress due to my anxiety (and this is shown in my support plan pdf files). I have attached an email (in pdf format) that I sent on the 13th of October: In that file, I state that I made a sarcastic comment stating (as can be seen in a pdf file that I have) “I suppose I didn’t lose my PhD, despite having two U grades in my first year because of admin issues. Racism didn’t occur. No. How could it, we are a loving, caring, fantastic, set of people. We won’t tell other people not to reply to your emails for legal reasons. We won’t end bimonthly meetings without any reasons given (with a company associated to my PhD), rendering you with zero motivation to do anything”. Today (14th October) I find out that my PhD has now been terminated - 3 months after a racist incident that occurred during my first-year review was recorded, thanks to some genius thinking “Ah, yes, this sarcastic comment has a point - let us do that…” The racism that occurred in my first-year re-review (that shouldn’t have happened in the first place due to collusion…) is also recorded. The university knows of what happened and clearly agree with me (I mean, explain to me why a BAME member knows of what happened? This can be seen in a screenshot I have). Despite all of this, I have not been given a date for when HR will tell me about what is going on. I remember I submitted a complaint to Report and Support (using their online form via their website) on the 3rd September, informing them about Supervisor A being nominated for an award. On the 6th September, I get an email from my department stating that the bimonthly meeting have been cancelled (I have a screenshot of this). I then sent another complaint on the 6th September telling Report and Support that I will email the awards team about what Supervisor A has done (conspiring for me to lose my PhD) if they don’t. I then get an email from Report and Support (my first from them after 4 or 5 complaints - as can be seen in a pdf file that I have). I finally, the next day -7th September - I get a reply from the person I emailed telling them about some good news (I created a potential software that COMPANY wanted) after 2 weeks of no reply [this can be seen in a pdf file that I have]. This suggests that even wellbeing have been told to not email/converse with me to hide information from me - and that I can’t trust anyone at the university. Even the email that I got to re-register into my 3rd year (on the 8th August) came on the same day that I got an email from a person that works for COMOPANY, stating that they will have a talk with my department [as can be seen in a pdf file that I have] - meaning that them allowing me to re-register was NOT a mistake; it was specifically done in order to allow me to continue with my PhD - so as long as I don’t escalate things or show extreme anger due to their neglect, apparently. How can I ever be happy if no one is checking on my wellbeing? How can I trust anyone when all the evidence shows that no one is on my side? When all the evidence shows that the university are trying their hardest to get rid of me (especially now that I am escalating the complaints)? I feel extremely alone, and my mental health has been damaged due to what has happened. I have already submitted an appeal (against termination of PhD) but I have also had enough of the university. Laughably, in my termination letter - it writes something along the lines of “after careful consideration…”, as if this wasn’t a rash decision that was done based on a comment that I wrote - sarcastically - one day prior. It is quite clear, ironically (I say “ironically” because this is what academics have accused me of themselves… I, somehow, don’t/can’t think) that academics and other staff members do not think before they do anything. They just do. “Ah, we will just change the deadline date to whatever we like - even though we made the initial deadline date in the first place. But don’t worry, I assure you - we couldn’t do anything about it”. It is quite laughable because it is very clear what is going on - nothing even remotely subtle or nuanced going on. I am a reasonable person, and I am understanding of certain things. For example, to even submit my level 3 complaint in the first place - the complaints team clearly stalled (I submitted only to be told - three weeks later - it isn’t correct… Even though there’s a 10-day deadline to submission) to “subtly” tell me that the person whom I had a meeting with regarding my level 2 complaint wasn’t at fault for the laughable level 2 complaints procedure that occurred. Unless complaints can give me a very clear reason why it took 3 weeks for me to get an email that says “wait… erm… there’s a mistake so I need you to resubmit that… yeah” then this is clearly the case. But guess what, after thinking about it - I agreed, it wasn’t that person’s fault (that I had a meeting with). I should also add that ACADEMIC B was involved with my level 1 complaint (as can be seen in a pdf file that I have); she also admitted about what I already stated about SUPERVISOR C (the main subject of my level 2 complaint) in a meeting that I, thankfully, recorded; ACADEMIC B left the university about a month after this recording. I also have proof that I did, in fact, have a conversation with ACADEMIC B - before I even made a level 1 complaint - regarding my extreme concerns regarding supervision (in a pdf file). During the 3 months between the racist incident (first year re-review, that is recorded) and the PhD termination, I had no supervisors and no direct correspondence at all to clarify what is going on with regards to my PhD.
The world is messy and answers to questions are often difficult or impossible to find. I don't condone his behavior but the appeal of simple stories that offer unambiguous (but wrong) answers is the driving force behind so much ignorance.
His motivation for fraud is only messed up in the context of Academia. "I just wanted to tell a neat story" is extremely human. My MA in History tells me (bias) it might be the most human sentence ever said.
Pete could you also help with - at the early stage of career how to combine our skills and create a rare combination of skills which adds value to another which are both useful in company's growth & also sky rocketing our progress ? I have heard about it skill stacking so was keen to know how is it done properly to work at our advantage..
I’m just curious why the list of most retracted authors has 5 Japanese sounding names in the top 10. Were they all in the same data fraud? Or just pure coincidence that there’s 5 japanese names on there
Of course, there is nothing special about any nationality. I guess there are a lot of people from Asia in that list as it is an extremely competitive environment and also a lot of researchers are from that region. The whole system on many levels involves much more competition in comparison to Europe.
@@salganik my guess is it's either a sign of better oversight (doubtful) or even racist-overfocus on one group (yeah sure Israel is a fascist-leaning country committing CAH, but if you are from the US, maybe focus on solving fascism in the US and CAH in the US a bit more instead of making everything about Israel, we all know the Likud and Hamas are evil). It's also less-risky to go after someone who isn't in a shared network if you are in a crony-based system.
You know that's a nice summation of him and how he has gone on to show his mistakes, but how do we correct this from not happening to begin with? In some fields it does not really matter, as in what may be in a theoretical field to begin with, and it does not affect a persons everyday life, but in other fields where lets say, you are changing laws on environmental things! Or passing laws on peoples behavior based on false papers or studies, it's affecting people that may have not needed to be affected to begin with! Or it may have economically impacted people, that wouldn't have been impacted if rules or laws weren't imposed on false studies or papers to begin with! How do you correct these issues, where studies may have an impact when used to create changes that affect peoples daily lives, but were never validated to begin with?
As painful as it is, they should have revoked the PhD titles of all of his students. Yes, they likely worked hard and yes, it is not their fault. However, PhD is first and foremost a measure of merit, not effort. Further diluting what it means to be a PhD in public eyes is far worse for everybody...
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching guys. The deeper I look into the academic discipline, the more broken parts I find. So will be talking more about this in future.
But this is not all I am passionate about. Behavioural science has a lot of good scientists and really interesting ideas. So videos on both the good and bad in the future.
Thanks man. Love your videos.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the recent story with the climate scientist Patrick T Brown titled "I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published".
I totally agree that there are LOTS of good scientists and interesting ideas out there. But I think the issue is that most people nowadays see science as a "truth," not "way to find the truth." So videos like this are VERY needed! But as a fellow nerd, I strongly agree too, to post both good and bad :)
@@damullethe author is making big statements out of thin air. He quote "didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors" to make a review (according to his own opinion) easier. And then after leaving academia he suggests that he could cover other factors better. First, it is his fault. A lot of great papers cover all different reasons for climate change from change in solar activity to volcanoes to show anthropogenic contribution. Second, he didn't even try to submit a paper "not following the trend" so he had zero proof, as experiments cannot be done like that.
the real problem is Peer Reviewing. Especially for experimental science. In the vast majority of papers, peer reviewing cannot be done for cognitive and time limits. It follows that scientific publications are not validated in any way. And together with ranking of research, of university, etc are just a tool of academic power.
@@2021philyou and what do you suggest to use for study validation instead of peer review?
Most scientific papers in decent journals are validated by checking methodology and, if applicable, how close the results are described by existing laws and previous publications. And 1% of cheaters are going to exist all the time.
Yeesh, when your PhD adviser has you write up your thesis using their own data that they provide for you instead of having you develop your own hypothesis, methodology, and collected set of data, you know that's a huge red flag!
Except if you haven't worked with a PhD advisor before. Then you might not realize how strange that is.
It's actually pretty common.
The whole point of a PhD program is for students to learn to find data, develop hypotheses, develop methods of testing the hypotheses. Cranking the advisor’s data is not enough.
This varies a lot by discipline. My PhD is in Epi, and it was almost unheard of for any PhD student to collect their own data, since the discipline is more focused on complex methods, analytic design, and utilizing big data (as in tens of thousands of observations, which would be unrealistic for any PhD student's first foray into data collection).
Yet it happens 😔
It scares me how brazen and blatant most publicized cases of study fraud look. Raises the question of whether more sophisticated attempts are truly rare or a halfway intelligent fraudster just never gets caught.
Im currently an engineering PhD student. I obviously don't commit fraud, but doing so would be trivially easy. I deal with hundreds/thousands of samples and can add/remove them as I please. It's scary to see how easy it is, so I'm sure most fraud is never caught. The biggest preventor of fraud, in my anecdotal experience, is the constant interaction with your advisor who would notice if your bad data suddenly started looking good.
I agree, it is concerning to consider the possibility
@@brentedgerton9469depends on if you have a good supervisor or SB who doesn't care about you unless you can put their name on a toilet paper article
@@brentedgerton9469 Unless your advisor is providing really, really good datasets from his/her imagination....
@@brentedgerton9469 One may be "lucky" to publish a study based on fake data, but the journey does not end there. A decent study usually includes intercomparison with other results and models, in which fake data is going to fail (maybe in future studies fraud will be revealed). For data to be looking good, one should also understand the laws behind those observations, which is not that common, especially for young scientists. Therefore, sure, it is not hard to present fake data, but why doing so? =)
Videos like this really opened my eyes that I'm not crazy honestly... for my undergraduate thesis, I used someone's paper as a reference... i kept counting and counting but the number was just wrong.... i tried to email them, no answer too. I told my professor and he said "this has been peer reviewed, so yours the one might be wrong, check it again". Like I swear, I count it like 20+ times probably.. :") i ended up using my own calculation for my undergrad thesis but yeah, thanks for making videos like this!!
Peer review is not designed to check all numbers (but it is possible). It is designed to check validity of methods used in the paper and adequacy of conclusions made based on the results. If someone's calculations are wrong, well, it's bad, but it can be fixed by reporting the error in future publications or correcting the original paper. Nothing is wrong in making mistakes. Wrong results eventually just won't be cited well.
In brief, your supervisor is wrong in understanding what a peer review is.
@@salganikno his supervisor said his might be wrong, so the student checked many times. Nothing wrong there.
@@asumazilla not really. The student checked the results many times before asking his supervisor. And the supervisor recommended checking the results even after claiming that peer review assumes that all numbers were checked. Which is not what peer review is responsible for=)
Most papers have a number of inaccuracies, some of them fundamental. First, there's no reason to think they were all fraudulent, second if you think there's something wrong with a paper you can write to the editor of the journal that published the work. You can handle paper corrections or inaccuracies that way.
Typos happen.
Stapel's original sin was trying to *prove* his hypothesis. Instead he should have been trying to *test* it.
None of the above. He should have been trying to find data to draw a hypothesis from. Anytime you start with a solution and try to work backward, you will end up somewhere that doesn't exist - which is exactly what happened to him.
@@spacewater7this
Um, spacewater7, do you remember in middle school learning about the scientific method and they would ask you to write a hypothesis first? That's because a hypothesis comes before any testing. It's not a hypothesis if you're looking at the data already gathered, then it's a conclusion.
No one in academia is ever trying to prove anything. Theories cannot be proven in science, they can only disproven. Academics try to theorize something based on data. No one is trying to prove anything, except religious people; they are pretty driven to prove their book correct.
@@duetopersonalreasonsaaaaaa Apparently your education was rather tainted with Newthought? Explains a lot of what's wrong with 'science' these days. Speaking of Newspeak, Science is now considered a proper noun apparently, and people can identify as it, or change in and out of it, like a gender, or a lab coat. Fascinating! But perhaps you and your unfortunate classmates should study some Greek philosophy, to unwash your mind?
Thanks for bringing up this excellent example of how things became the way they are going. Remember though, just because you see something on TV, or read it in a newspaper, or even a textbook - it doesn't mean that it's true.
This is what happens when nobody bothers trying to replicate previous studies, an essential part of the scientific method. General rule of thumb: it's not real until it replicates.
I feel proof of replication with another lab and third party verification of the data analysis needs to be the new standard for publication. It's not going to stop fraud but it will stop fraud like this
@@Stevie-J The use of proprietary data and unpublished code is more of a problem.
@Stevie-J Prepare for the pseudo-intellectuals. They're coming...
lol, good luck getting grants or tenure if you focus on replication
@@LorxusIsAFox That is the problem.
In the US, every research institution is required to have a Research Integrity Officer, who is the *only* person you should go to with suspicions of academic fraud. Bringing it up with the suspected person just gives them a chance to cover their ass or throw someone else under the bus.
In the US, there have been cases of the institution then going straight to the accused warning them anyway about the impending investigation and investigating committee members having conflicts of interest (example: the initial investigation into Eric Stewart by FSU.)
We have that in the Netherlands as well. Unfortunately these things are no garantees.
meaningless in crony networks. also such officers more and more rarely have any academic background.
That’s like saying “Take your problem straight to HR” - who can then work with management and legal to limit the damage to the institution, including just covering things up.
See response of doctorlolchicken. Any internal board is likely to act as a coverup. Just look at what happened with Stanford University last president. Or almost all others in this channel. Or to all those who accepted hoax papers in the grievance studies. Nothing.
Thats how abusive personalities survive. They isolate those under them. They acuse others of their crimes, they play the victim's. And only when they know they are cooked do they then admit things and fall back on playing the victim.
Meghan Markle
The huge gray area between 100% correct data processing and transaparency and obvious data fraud is what worries me.
like with bigotry, ignorance is not an excuse for bad data. Incompetence should get you fired too anyways, no?
@@jesipohl6717
But there are metascientific results showing that the average researcher does not understand her own methods and has forgotten about basic first-year statistics concepts. Do you mean to say that we should dramatically cull the herd until only a smaller, more elite sample of scientists remain?
I would be all for that, because metascience also shows that most papers never get cited and most scientists never contribute anything, except...
... Except, who can we count on to perform the culling in an even-handed, meritocracy-maximizing way? Isn't part of the problem that everything from admissions offices to faculties to grants committees and editorial boards put various other concerns ahead of scientific integrity? It's hard to identify any one part of the system that we can really solidly lean on and use as a measuring stick for the rest.
The obvious answer is to publish all data sets with the discarded data. How we would enforce that is, of course, an exercise for the reader.
But if you can't check all the data, the paper might as well be hearsay.
@@robertbeisert3315 I somewhat agree. I believe that in behavioral sciences, it should be mandatory for researchers to publish the precise data processing and data analysis steps, along with the raw data. I mean the exact steps that were done after extracting the raw data. Easiest option would be to publish the code for R, SPSS, or such, that was used. A lot of scientists work with software where you only have to press around, e.g. Excel to process data. In that way, no one from the outside can trace how you arrived at the final data you analyze and then how you arrived at the results you claim.
@@robertbeisert3315stillbaffles me that for a thesis no one will read you have to give them your data/code, but apparently not if you wosh to publish thus efficting the entire community
I really wonder how many of these academics have not been caught, because the ones that did get caught, did really stupid stuff. Using the same data set for multiple studies, writing the name of the university instead of the year, getting duplicate numbers of the subjects,... It makes me think that anyone who's just a little bit better at covering their tracks would not be caught.
I'm concerned about how many studies were built off of the fraud studies, and the fake data just kept building up because no one wanted to admit it couldn't be replicated.
There are several studies, where researchers were anonymously asked if they ever faked their data. The fraction was around 1%. Of course, it is easy to fake anything including data. But 99% of researchers do their science to find the real unknown answer and to improve their skills. On the most levels having some striking results is not a requirement, no correlation is often just fine.
@@markhall2414 there is a fraction of retracted papers (small fraction of percent) and an estimate of researchers fraction who ever cheated (1%). That's what we have. When bad papers are becoming highly cited, there is a good chance to reveal the errors or cheating. There is no proof that this is a systematic problem. And there is a reason why such stories mostly occur in disciplines where it's easy to cheat (behavioural science).
@@markhall2414 yes, most probably. That's why the fraction of cheating is so much higher than the fraction of retracted papers. In most of the fields cheating also requires a good understanding of the topic, as one should understand what would be the expected pattern following some physical law.
@@markhall2414 this most often happens with data-mining, whenever I read "let the data speak for itself" that's code for, "maybe we did some data mining and tried some analyses and stat-tests till it worked, we didn't correct for multiple tests though, cause the data told us not to..."
"Data-directed research" is something I am always skeptical of.
I once was a tutor for a group of smart students who wanted advices on how to do some experiments on which I was an expert. But their time and budget was so tiny that in the end the experiment they made had lost relavance. To my great surprise, they ended wit significant results and they got a good grade at their university. When I proposed them to publish their data, they told me they chose to fabricate everything because the raw data were meaningless. I was shocked. They were smart. They were a group, not an individual let alone with his décisions. The pressure on their shoulders was very mild because even with negative results they would have got their degree. Despite all of this they decided to cheat. Cheating when the risk of being coutch is small and the punishment would be mild IS THE PREFERES OPTION of most people. Even the smartest ones.
Thought about it once. It was an engineering project that couldn't be done - not enough ports to handle the data I/O required. But the only evidence asked for was a video we could totally fake.
We sided with honesty and failed the major assignment. Passed the class and got the degree, though.
One of my Med school friends did this. Two of them sat up all night filling out a few hundred survey forms using a variety of pens etc.
I myself did hard science. Through the first 3 years of my degree I always knew what the result of an 'experiment' should be, including what amount and kind of noise to expect in the data so it often got fabricated to speed things along. I actually think it was a good way to learn and helped when I did do my thesis (which involved collecting genuine field data).
In a similar vein, my favourite school teacher was one who just wrote out notes longhand on a blackboard for us to copy down. It kept the class quiet and efficiently conveyed the required knowledge. When I described this to an Education lecturer he huffed and puffed about 'learning by doing'. The guy had no conception that that knowledge had taken generations of 'learning by doing' to accumulate.
At least they didn't decide to try to publish it, lol.
They likely cheat all the time, as the cheating solution came so easily, and without concern or remorse.
smart, intelligent, genius. these are all just fluid concepts. i have a few defined. but just to clarify, our belief that someone is "smart" is an expectation of them or their "ability", not their actual outcome.
You are slowly turning into the Coffeezilla who covers Academic Fraud. You and that Broccoli guy should team up to make the next big hitpiece doc.
All in all, thank you for this stuff and for bringing light into an often neglected section of academia. As entertaining as this is, it is important that people become more cognizant of this phenomenon.
YA, TEAM UP WITH BROCCOLI GUY!
That would be long lasting career..lol
Yeeeees, this please ⬆️
@@spaghettiisyummy.3623 yesss please
Why? He is just repackaging already published articles?
Cofeezilla investigates himself
Wasn’t there something similar in Alzheimers research when one researcher mislead an industry for many years who wasted funds and years trying to find therapies based on this researcher’s findings but later it was found that this researcher’s work could not be replicated and his approach was abandoned.
Yes I think I remember hearing about this guy.
He was president of Stanford University and ran several labs. None of his studies were replicated successfully, and whistle-blowers exposed the outright fraud.
Billions of dollars in research were based on his lies, and he skated with a golden parachute.
Yup , and to make matters worse his papers was one of the most cited papers *ever* , so easily billions (if not more ) in research went to trash in less than a week
Yes no brain plaque
That’s an atrocity, speaking as someone who has had a beloved family member afflicted with this dread disease. Consequences like that to public health really ought to merit criminal penalties. It’s worse than murdering a person, because millions could be harmed by his actions. I’m speaking hypothetically, though, only knowing what you just recounted.
I just finished reading “Science Fictions” by Stuart Ritchie, and Diederik makes an appearance. It’s a great book that goes into a lot of depth about these kinds of issues. The academic and publishing culture and incentives take center stage in his critique, I think you’d really like the book. Ritchie is also a psychologist, and many of the examples he draws come from his field.
This professor's confession is worth more to the study of behavioral science than 60 academic papers
Nothing to study. It's just manipulation by a con artist.
He is a pure narcissist. He is proud of what he did.
@@BlackSakura33 What makes you think that?
@@homeless5913his entire attitude. He proudly states that the data he got from the field didn't match his intended results, THEREFORE faking the results was the right and logical thing to do.
@@jwentingspot on. This professor blamed people first and now after getting caught, he's being regarded as upfront. What a load of garbage. He's only "upfront" and honest cuz he got caught!
He should go to JAIL!! He intentionally STOLE MONEY and COMMITTED FRAUD!!! What the hell?!?! NO!!! Just because he’s “refreshingly honest?!” No he will have real world consequences!!!
I know, I hate how these academic fraud cases are never treated like financial fraud, even though they are often using public funding to carry out this research. I don't see how this is any different than lying to investors about sales/profit, which usually comes with several years of prison.
Not to mention the potential harm created by spreading falsified information.
Its impossible to quantify but this person literally set us back years to decades in understanding.
Beyond selfish.
They are trying to lesson the damage to the scientism religion
I just finished a paper on a VR (Virtual Reality) experience that I use to teach radioactivity at university, I found that the tool works and is quicker to tell the facts... but several side studies are inconsistent... I didn't find if playing video games had an effect on the information that they took from the VR experience. I checked several improvements and looked if they play video games or not, and I found... inconsistencies, I couldn't find any relationships... so my original thesis crumbled... I know that the problem is some of the students that I give the questionaries don't understand the questions... because after talking with those students, I started to recognize a pattern: the students that increase higher their grades are the ones that read more books, but a few personal interviews are not data... so now I am improving the VR experience, to make new questionaries, to test on students in several universities...
So, I don't know why some people want to have exceptional results in every paper, I want to continue the research and make a better approach every time.
So , so , so ...
Ok so one problem that I see is “getting your data from the advisor”. As a PhD student myself I would NEVER accept any data from a professor. There are valid and reliable online data
sources like ESS, but the purpose of getting a PhD is to experience the whole process from setting up studies, taking measurements, analyzing the data and writing the dissertation.
For the most basic ergonomics diagnosis at an office, my undergrar team had to fill oit individual sheets and record videos of over 50 employees.
10 years later, I still have those cards inside a box in my room.
It is ridiculous that a PhD does not have that amount of proof to substantiate his research and people believe it to be an awesome researcher.
Yes.
These people get obsessed with finding in the world what they WANT to find.
That is why I can't trust science anymore.
Because it predertermines the outcome first, and then invents the data to prove that predetermined outcome.
The power of science is not one paper... or one results. It is repeating the experiment and using that data. In simple terms trust in the number of citations (ignore self citations).
That man could get away because he was in a soft science... where there is little interest to repeat his experiment. In biochemistry. if you do X, Y, Z, you get result A. Everyone nods and repeat X, Y, Z because they want to use A for their own work. If they cannot get A, you will soon know about it. And if you cannot guide them to get A, you will find your paper receiving no citations. And it will be buried under obscurity and forgotten.
I remember this. It was on the news quite a lot. Definitely put a dent in my trust in social science research. Now years later, I've learned that quite a few 'high profile' research findings in social science have replication problems or the author thinks their study has a problem in some way and they doubt their findings. So many things that are put in books as a truth are doubtful. It makes me sad. I love reading about social science, but I don't like it when I need to worry about if the studies written about are based on decent science or not.
I would love it if you talk about scientists/ authors and books that are still trustworthy and based on good science.
I'm sorry to break it to you but all science fields have issues like that. Like medicine and biology there are people literally (badly) photoshopping their pictures of cells or fudging around with their staining images. In CS and AI people just overtraining train models tweaking them learing to results that literally say nothing in comparison to other papers. In physics you had the "Schön scandal" were data was fabricated. Acadenics are people. And other people working on unreasonable pressure to excel and produce. This doesn't bread honestly and there will always be bad apples.
Thats why there is so much debate about the peer review process and people pushing towards open science etc. It's difficult to spot fraude sometimes even when you have a highly trained eye often also because of a lack of time.
@@mignonhagemeijer3726 100% agreed.
@@mignonhagemeijer3726 Ahh, even more saddening :p
I think you're right about the pressure applied to scientists, especially the ones teaching at universities. The system should change.
Part of the problem is that data made up to fit fake hypotheses often tells a more interesting tale than the real data. It’s hard for people to let go of, even when the scientist themself is out there telling people they were wrong. It happened with the researcher who came up with the alpha wolf theory-he came by his results honestly, and later realized he was wrong, but no one wants to listen to his corrections. It happened with Andrew Wakefield, who faked an entire body of work, and now far too many people think vaccines cause autism.
The good news is that if you come up with a study that goes viral, it doesn’t matter whether you did it right. Even if you’re exposed and you lose your reputation, your credentials, and your job, you can still get rich fleecing the people who believe you. Sure, you might destroy tens of thousands of lives. But what’s that next to a guaranteed, and huge, income?
From a more Art, Literature and Design background, the problems with Social Sciences are the Believers that it is close to Natural Sciences.
One, society changes. A great study five years, may not be replicable just because the times change. Two, humans actions and desires lie between art and science. Three, people are different and don't fit neatly in a lable.
This made me wanna watch a video on Joachim Boldt, the one with the most papers being taken down, at almost 200.
Lol, same. He was asking if I was wondering about what happened next and I was just wondering about the story of the top 3 retracted.
It is still hard for him to beat Meghan Markle in sociopathy contest
Even in his apology, he's lying. Stapel wasn't obsessed with finding an explanation for certain phenomena: he was obsessed with obtaining academic status and research funds. The guy's a typical sociopath.
I wouldn’t say it’s sociopathic, just a simple reality of research that’s very much present and needs to be acknowledged. This kind of stuff if why I got kind of annoyed with all of the sociology courses I took as a minor in college while getting a psychology degree. The field of sociology is ESPECIALLY hypocritical when it comes to this reality, where they will call out the selfish and flawed pursuits in effectively every aspect of society, but do so while making the most absolutely USELESS and academia bait research imaginable.
Their research either makes such broad claims about society that asks for sweeping changes to massive systems that are unfounded, unimaginable, or untested, say absolutely nothing at all with buzzwords and semantics with no real data or facts (effectively just someone’s political opinion), or they tackle something with such a hyper specific viewpoint that it proves nothing, misses/misinterprets critical information, or nothing would ever be done about it by anyone in power. All the while sucking up so much money in salaries, research grants, publications, university and lab space, book deals, and political pandering. All while taking massive research trips to foreign countries that are effectively research based sabbaticals, taking people and research assistants away from actually critical studies, and exploiting the lives of impoverished locals for papers ands posts that are effectively just “poverty p***”.
All of this to teach and further some of THE MOST USELESS majors in the entire collegiate system that have very little direct translation to the working world, research or otherwise.
@@courier6960 Sociopathic just like Armstrong
Yeah, I might sympathize with the temptation to eliminate outliers in data because you think it's noise. But that's not even what happened here. He never even visited the train station (or any of those buildings) to conduct the experiment. The data is 100% made up! It's very disingenuous to try and pass that off as massaging data because nature won't cooperate. He never even asked nature!
What's the point then? How hard would it have been to actually collect the data? It shouldn't take more than a few weeks anyway.
@@azearaazymoto461
Pretty hard actually, even a simple paper can take months, you forget that you have to actually get people in seats for that, train staff on how to administer tests, do screening sessions and forms that have to be sorted through to confirm that people don’t have a condition that would cause them to be excluded, get everything approved by review boards, get funding for any and all supplies and staff, etc.
If the wikipedia page is correct about this decade-old case, his graduate students indeed rarely saw the raw data, and rarely conducted an actual experiment. That would make it a very, very unusual lab.
It's much more common for a lab head in a big lab to have no contact with raw data at all (often down to not even knowing exactly where to find it). So there are usually checks and balances in place that make scientific fraud difficult for senior scientists. It's more often done by a "lone wolf" at a lower level, who is involved in data collection (eg a graduate student under pressure to finish their thesis and establish a successful career trajectory).
The most important check is replication. When an important finding is published, other scientists generally rush to reproduce the experiment, often with even better methods. If they can't get similar results, the credibility of the original work and its authors is damaged. They will likely have a harder time getting research funding and getting pubished.
With open data becoming a more common requirement, fraud will become even harder for the very small number of scientists who might contemplate it.
Wow. Somewhat caught lying/committing fraud that lead them to prominence who doesn't double down on lying and ego, admitting they were wrong, not blaming others and trying to burn everything down, and taking responsibility for their actions and mistakes.
There is hope. Thanks for this content.
It's shocking that there's 6 people with more retracted papers than him.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines"
I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine”
Marcia Angell
What an arrogant assertion, born of the comforts provided by modern medicine.
@Divergent_Integral Well said ... I think Chicken Little @chicken29843 didn't read far enough to know I was quoting the Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine; and chicken little brain thought that I was making a personal judgement statement.
@@chicken29843so your parents own you as a property then.
no pleasure?this, this is freedom!…
I like how "professionals" get caught doing their job wrong all the time, and I have to meticulouisly edit my resume so i can work at fedx kikos 😒
Class system problems
😂 you’re not alone. But honestly, doesn’t the way the world is functioning say everything to affirm that that’s how you have to act to gain status or power? We work for a living because we rather be capable of honesty and conscientiousness than be screwups ruining society with a death of a thousand cuts. Keep it up and don’t be like them.
yet, you most likely attack your peer, not your real enemies, another one who is trying to get an entry-level job
tells a lot about your intelligence
Academic fraud should be criminalized
Why?
@@anacondalove1423Science is a sacred practice of the west, and it should be treated as such. On top of that, this would be a great dissuader of any academics thinking of getting their hands dirty. It should absolutely be criminalized, because fraud is fraud no matter what kind and by definition fraud is harmful to others
@@anacondalove1423it's fraud, mate. It not only defrauds the funders by providing them false results for their money, but any follow-up research becomes more expensive and difficult due to the falsehood.
See also: the hundreds of papers and billions in research on Alzheimer's based on the fraudulent Stanford study
@@kramarancko1107science is not exclusive to the west, it is very sus to write this way
@@phenax1144I never said it was
Very well done video.
One of the first things that my Phd supervisors told me was to form a conclusion based on data, not to form data based on a conclusion. A honest research that shows insignificant results is much better than a dishonest (manipulated) research with groundbreaking results.
I think many people fall into the same issues as this professor here. He wanted shocking and groundbreaking results, and willingly manipulate his data to support his conclusions. Unfortunately, the same can be said to many people in academia that I know (even though they did not manipulate the data, but they use unsuitable research methods to get what they want).
Please become the coffeezilla for academic fraud
I love the way you portray these stories. Academia is full of pretense and people who think theyre intellectually superior which often leads to high levels of insecurity.
With all of this data fraud coming to light, both past and present, what oversight techniques have journal editors put in place? Would love to hear your take and/or your findings on that across various academic fields. I think submitting de-identified data sets to a journal would be a start.
Good one. So glad you are doing this. The system cares more about money and ego then the science itself. This dynamic permeates throughout the rest of modern society too. It's gotten pretty disgusting.
The joys of living in a capitalistic society.
@@nickl5658nah, the joys of living in reality. Things happen the same wherever a government can hold potentially infinite power over anyone.
According to a Post Doc from Delhi U, some research groups publish a paper every few months, which for the kind of research, amount of resources, reviews and check ups involved are absolutely unrealistic. Forcefully, some of those papers have to be fake; some of them are indeed fake and the students know, yet they are powerless to do anything against it.
I'm a Psychology student here at Tilburg University and he is really a great example of how not to do science. And Marcel Zeelenberg is even my Professor in Economic Psychology... I didn't knew that he know him so well, he didn't told us that
Your content is so refreshing. Pulling back the curtin on academia is so important, and hopefully, it will change the system long term. Unfortunately, until then, who can we believe. They have lost the public trust, and that is crime.
The fact that a few people are charlatans doesn’t destroy the entire field. There will always be a few charlatans, and they’ll always take too long to be unmasked. That’s how humans are. Doesn’t matter what the field is.
The main thing is to remember that if something is deeply satisfying, it’s probably either fake or spun so hard that it might as well be fake. That’s true in news, in gossip, in history, and in academia. The clear, easy-to-understand, satisfying stories are wrong. The muddled, unfinished, slightly confusing stories with lots of outliers and no clear answers are probably correct.
"For unknown reasons, their reports were dismissed."
That right there? That treatment of people who overcame the fear of a very real possibility of their advisor retaliating against them? That's why fraud continues.
"I got blinded by my goal" said every cheater ever.
He shoulda went with “plot twist: this was actually a big experiment in how flawed the academic system is”
I do not get it. He could so easily have made real studies and become a real hero. Such a sad story.
In real life scientific studies often have neutral results. Heroism is not the norm.
This brings the name Michael Mann from the Pennsylvania State University to mind. I wonder how many areas there are where fraud has shaped public perceptions of "truth" found through science?
Anyone else notice how often Science is involved in these things. How is it a coincidence? Why are they still considered so prestigious?
Lol because every other system is flawed on purpose, whereas scientific method is pure but corrupted by bad individuals
Even the studies we just accept are weird beyond words. "We made children afraid of rats and then showed them rats and that's why we know about the fear response."
Im sorry but did you say you tormented children for science?
Probably because the ratio of prestigious, important papers to fraud is massive.
This fraud is a serious offense that can hurt many. Bad behavior should not be rewarded and honesty is not valid when you are caught
Definitely super refreshing to see someone own their lies! I hope he finds a way to help fix the system with his honest redemption tour
"There's something about the environment, the publication pressure." Said no firefighter / oil rig worker / triage nurse ever.
Does Stapel have the faintest idea of how narcissistic this sort of lament makes him look? And would still make him look *even if he had never committed academic fraud?*
How much pressure is put on researchers by the funders to produce certain results? How much pressure is put on to ignore the answers the funders do not like? Conflicts of interest should be excluded from any research - the Masters could have too much influence (?).
It’s going to be worst now to detect fraud with AI and since anyone can use Google Map Streetview and photos to see most locations in the world.
I was able to virtually walk the grounds of The Taj Mahal without ever visiting India from my home on Lake Erie.
Data fraud is common, especially in studies that cannot be exact - clinical studies for one, especially in pharmaceutical industries.
Quite frankly, I now have doubts about most so-called academic research findings. We are lied to daily about a range of things and nobody either cares enough or takes the time to check the results. The hockey stick is the perfect example.
how the heck does the study in Utrecht station get accepted and published? if you are talking about how people say at a bench the minimum requirement from is to have a photo of the benches itself(to show how messy they were). How did that even get past reviewers???
Great video Pete, the quality of these videos is sky rocketing.
I wonder if the students who got their PhD's on false data, got to keep their PhDs? I hope they did since they were victims. OTOH, they didn't get the full practice of other students.
Separate data collection from data analysis and interpretation.
For example, if your lab run a serie of experiments, you can only publish the methodology and the data. You can not write an abstract, result or conclusion.
Once the data is in the public domain, anyone can analyze and interpret your data into another paper, but you will be given lead authorship. However, you can not collaborate with the interpretors of your data.
Once this analysis is published, you can then choose to agree or disagree with the analysis.
His honesty afterwards isn't something to value in my opinion. The only reason he's being so honest is because he was so obviously committing fraud that he couldn't deny it. Because he admits it, he now gets to write books and give speeches about his story so that he can make money off of his infamy. Not really that admirable.
😂
I find it so incredibly disappointing that he made almost 60 false papers, and is only ranked 7th, always nice to be reminded that there is no bottom bar to the trash, and you can never set your expectations low enough
Why is faking data for profit/fame not a crime!?!
Next step: Failing forward in the academia. I fully expect this to become a thing because why not.
Having witnessed academic fraud at my university amongst PhD students and supervisors, I've lost some faith in science, once a passion of mine in pharmaceutics. I nearly was accepted for a PhD but it was a blessing in disguise. I'm now on a completely different career path.
Something is rotten in the state of behavioral science.
All science to be honest 😅
@@червонадзюбка as a neuroscientist, agreed.
@rainerausdemspring3584
they calculated carefully,avarage joe like us won't even notice
@rainerausdemspring3584
In order provide proofs math need calculate in the proccess,and minimize the risk.
@rainerausdemspring3584
LOL.... that claim not even counter my comment.
"Retraction Watch" ok so the character has sunk this low now that we need this...
I have no sympathy with him whatsoever. Why would you make up data to support a narrative of racial hostility. Its damaging for cases where there are genuine racial prejudice, and it’s stoking controversy for his own status. It’s despicable behaviour and he is only sorry he got caught.
Simple: Political ideology.
How long do you suppose funding would continue for inconclusive research?
A major problem is the grant providers expect satisfactory results for their money. Writers understand the importance of producing what is expected. The grant process is in control of "science". Ordinary citizens should have the opportunity to read studies that are publically funded to see for themselves what the government plans to do.
The field of data science is filled with this issue of the desired results outweighing the messy data and real world data in particular being contrary to preconceived notions.
"for some reason" the reports didn't go anywhere? Yea, because university administration do not care to investigate any claim the findings of which might hurt their precious reputation.
I'm a math student and I'd like to know if it is even possible to commit this kind of fraud in pure math fields.
I know cases of professors literally stealing research, but I a mathematical work is just right or wrong.
You can't fake it so much.
Can anyone help me?
Just be a famous mathematician and write on the margins of books "there's a beautiful proof for this fact which unfortunately doesn't fit this margin"
Good point. And that is why most of such (extremely rare) frauds mostly occur outside of mathematics or physics. While in less accurate fields of study, there is a trend to have open-access datasets, which also helps.
@@salganik untrue statement. the fraud differs in terms of attribution fraud and data theft and data mining for statistical work.
Proof addicts being like: "imma make a study on fraud forgiveness and troll them all by saying I've cheated".
Refreshing. That's what I was thinking. Let him be the guide for the many, many scandals that WILL be uncovered in the near future. I have a feeling, Pete, that you're going to be getting more material for your videos than you'll know what to do with.
Absolutely love this channel. Coffeezilla of academic fraud
Love the vids. I’m a physicist who lives in the world of publish a parish and all that. Never once in my life have I considered fabricating results. It’s hard to imagine.
-Pete, how many videos are you going to make about fake data scandal??
-Yes
I understand some of the dutch culture that allowed him to act like that in the aftermath, but he ruin PhD lifes .. like the effort to build a first milestone in their careers
Your videos are always so interesting, such an underrated channel!
Great video Pete. As an academic myself I hope I never get desperate.
Trust the science they say, quoting findings backed by fake data as gospels of truth.
This may be a stupid question, but how are those studies approved? In human studies and medical studies, there is a lot of IRB requirements and approval. Is it that different when it comes to behavioral science? You can just observe people on a train station?
Stapel's excuse is he cheated because doing real science is too difficult. You know, like shoplifters who steal because cigarettes and filetmigon are too expensive. Freeman Dyson said he did not like the PhD system because it entices students, who have neither the interest nor talent to perform meaningful research, into work for which they are unsuited. He is right. Every podunk university in the US operate a doctoral degree mill, furiously churning out PhDs in a litany nonsensical fields, e.g. Nursing, Gender Studies, etc. This glut of poorly educated, unaccomplished , and supremely entitled faux-academics expect employment and compete for the limited resources giving rise to the mania for publishing simple flashy stories. The solution is to reduce doctoral programs by 90% and to stop funding inept researchers. Emphasize quality over quantity and merit over identity and the fraud problem will disappear.
Grants should be offered to peer reviewers who find doctored data.
Can't wait for the next episode where Pete the truth of behavioral science is not science
you should focus more on the whole academic system than on single cases. If 90% of professors knows that peer review is a fraud as it is never done, but still get to enjoy the benefit of advancing each other careers, than the issue is larger than the single cases.
I completely understand where Stapel is coming from. But I didn’t until after the financial crisis of 2008. I always did data analytics involving customers, but in 2011 I was forced to do loss forecasting, which for large US banks is heavily regulated - now. See, prior to 2008 the situation in banking was like academia, people wanted clean simple stories that reinforced what they believed. Provide what people want to hear and get promoted, don’t and get fired. I was surprised to find that now we had to get independent third parties to check all our analyses. It’s a major pain in the ass. So naturally I didn’t understand what the point was. Yes, people can make mistakes, but any data scientist with any experience is not going to make mistakes big enough to matter. Your mistake might throw your estimate off by a few million, but this is billions of dollars - the bank pays more than that for printer ink. However, what I eventually realized is that all this is because people were faking results. Essentially, executives think the answer should be no more than $100bn, so the data scientists would manufacture results that came to $100bn.
To some extent the “provide the answers we expect” mentality still exists because the execs convinced the feds that it was all data scientists’ fault (no doubt while playing golf) so the fed came after the low level “criminals” rather than addressing the root cause of the problem- much like academia today.
Awesome! I agree with your closing remarks.
This just goes to show how long established academic ideology becomes an echo chamber whereby they believe their own lies!
Excellent as always, but I agree with others here that the stock photos are very distracting. I actually closed my eyes to just listen to you speaking.
Isolating students is a huge red flag to me. (Been there, done that - and thankfully managed to get out.) This is the way toxic supervisors get you to do anything they want, by making you feel completely alone, making you believe that everyone else is your enemy. When whatever idea or valued criticism you bring to the supervisor is immediately dismissed, many people will eventually give up and do as told. Or pimp up or fabricate date just to get them off your back. Sure, the whole system of academia is broken. The way funding works might be the main reason behind the fraud cases that have been popping up left an right these last few months. But the loss of community in science might also be a big contributor.
Does anybody have any idea why data fraud occurs in academics? Could it be that those professors have to keep up with their publishing requirements? Like in my country prof/dr has to publish a certain amount of paper/book per year to keep their title.
it occurs for the same reason it does everywhere privileged people who don't care about anyone but themselves trying to get ahead even further.
Isn't that obvious? If you actually do the black white person messy clean train station experiment you 1. Gotta do the work. It's effort. It takes time. Sitting there waiting n watching. Cleaning and messing up the station 2. You are not guaranteed an eye catching result. Things might be inconclusive. Meh. If you just make the whole thing up you get your interesting or even sensational result without sitting at a train station for hours.
@@jesipohl6717white Privilege
My Behavioral Economics professor said the field was treated as a joke among economists, but he didnt know why. Well, now I know.
Any plans to cover Dan Ariely?
Yep
I think all reports and papers need to be peer reviewed before they can be submitted to _ANYONE_ . At anytime.
Even full professors should have to have their papers peer reviewed first before it can be submitted or published.
_No exceptions_ at all on any level.
I like how we're suppose to "trust the science" as if it's infallible. You know, trust it, or lose your job.
After losing my PhD due to prejudice, nothing surprises me anymore.
wait, ...how?
@@metalslegendOne of my supervisors(and head of life sciences at my former university) conspired with my examiner (first year annual review) to fail me. My other supervisor didn't know how to use the FEA software that he was supposedly an "expert" in. I have (substantial) evidence for both statements mentioned. I even have a video recording of one academic (she gave me consent to record our conversation) admitting that the "expert" doesn't know how to use the software (she left the university one month later, to another country). The university, like the liars that they are, sided with the "academics". My PhD ended last October, after calling them out for not doing anything 3 months (and pretending as if nothing happened, despite the amount of complaints I was making - and the severity of the complaints).I was alienated for over 3 months until I finally had enough and called them out. Less than 24 hours later, I lost my PhD, they stated it was "due to failing my first year annual review".
Here's an email (without names) asking for help: I am writing to you concerning my university. There have been several incidences that have occurred that strongly suggest that the university has no laws or regulation - and can do whatever they please if it means protecting their own best interests - without caring at all about their own policies or even the law. My email relates to my university (to my best understanding) showing clear signs on hiding and not caring about bullying and harassment, discrimination, fitness to practice processes, procedural irregularities, research supervision (or lack thereof), poor teaching provision and facilities, unfair practices, and a clear neglect of welfare. I should also add that I do have an ombudsman looking at this situation (after my level 3 complaint failed - which didn’t consider any of the racist claims, that I have proof of, due to it being a “HR issue”. I have not been given a date for when HR will tell me about what is going on either. In fact, the level 3 outcome read as if no effort was put into it, despite several delays: 4 delays, with no reasons given).
On the 27th September, I email the dignity team (I have evidence of this in a pdf file) with more information about what I am complaining about. I didn’t get a reply until the 11th October (2 weeks later) stating that there are issues with what I wrote and that it isn’t clear what I am complaining about and how it relates to dignity I have evidence of this in a pdf file). I would, normally, be patient with regards to these things if something similar didn’t happen with my level 3 submission - the complaints team clearly stalled (I submitted only to be told - three weeks later - it isn’t correct… Even though there’s a 10-day deadline to submission, this can all be seen in the pdf file I have) to “subtly” tell me that the person whom I had a meeting with regarding my level 2 complaint wasn’t at fault for the laughable level 2 complaints procedure that occurred. The meeting is also recorded (by that person). This enraged me because - since submitting my level 1 complaint - I have been wanting my PhD to resume back to a normal manner, because the wait has caused me significant distress due to my anxiety (and this is shown in my support plan pdf files).
I have attached an email (in pdf format) that I sent on the 13th of October: In that file, I state that I made a sarcastic comment stating (as can be seen in a pdf file that I have) “I suppose I didn’t lose my PhD, despite having two U grades in my first year because of admin issues. Racism didn’t occur. No. How could it, we are a loving, caring, fantastic, set of people. We won’t tell other people not to reply to your emails for legal reasons. We won’t end bimonthly meetings without any reasons given (with a company associated to my PhD), rendering you with zero motivation to do anything”. Today (14th October) I find out that my PhD has now been terminated - 3 months after a racist incident that occurred during my first-year review was recorded, thanks to some genius thinking “Ah, yes, this sarcastic comment has a point - let us do that…” The racism that occurred in my first-year re-review (that shouldn’t have happened in the first place due to collusion…) is also recorded. The university knows of what happened and clearly agree with me (I mean, explain to me why a BAME member knows of what happened? This can be seen in a screenshot I have). Despite all of this, I have not been given a date for when HR will tell me about what is going on.
I remember I submitted a complaint to Report and Support (using their online form via their website) on the 3rd September, informing them about Supervisor A being nominated for an award. On the 6th September, I get an email from my department stating that the bimonthly meeting have been cancelled (I have a screenshot of this). I then sent another complaint on the 6th September telling Report and Support that I will email the awards team about what Supervisor A has done (conspiring for me to lose my PhD) if they don’t. I then get an email from Report and Support (my first from them after 4 or 5 complaints - as can be seen in a pdf file that I have). I finally, the next day -7th September - I get a reply from the person I emailed telling them about some good news (I created a potential software that COMPANY wanted) after 2 weeks of no reply [this can be seen in a pdf file that I have]. This suggests that even wellbeing have been told to not email/converse with me to hide information from me - and that I can’t trust anyone at the university. Even the email that I got to re-register into my 3rd year (on the 8th August) came on the same day that I got an email from a person that works for COMOPANY, stating that they will have a talk with my department [as can be seen in a pdf file that I have] - meaning that them allowing me to re-register was NOT a mistake; it was specifically done in order to allow me to continue with my PhD - so as long as I don’t escalate things or show extreme anger due to their neglect, apparently. How can I ever be happy if no one is checking on my wellbeing? How can I trust anyone when all the evidence shows that no one is on my side? When all the evidence shows that the university are trying their hardest to get rid of me (especially now that I am escalating the complaints)? I feel extremely alone, and my mental health has been damaged due to what has happened.
I have already submitted an appeal (against termination of PhD) but I have also had enough of the university. Laughably, in my termination letter - it writes something along the lines of “after careful consideration…”, as if this wasn’t a rash decision that was done based on a comment that I wrote - sarcastically - one day prior.
It is quite clear, ironically (I say “ironically” because this is what academics have accused me of themselves… I, somehow, don’t/can’t think) that academics and other staff members do not think before they do anything. They just do. “Ah, we will just change the deadline date to whatever we like - even though we made the initial deadline date in the first place. But don’t worry, I assure you - we couldn’t do anything about it”. It is quite laughable because it is very clear what is going on - nothing even remotely subtle or nuanced going on. I am a reasonable person, and I am understanding of certain things.
For example, to even submit my level 3 complaint in the first place - the complaints team clearly stalled (I submitted only to be told - three weeks later - it isn’t correct… Even though there’s a 10-day deadline to submission) to “subtly” tell me that the person whom I had a meeting with regarding my level 2 complaint wasn’t at fault for the laughable level 2 complaints procedure that occurred. Unless complaints can give me a very clear reason why it took 3 weeks for me to get an email that says “wait… erm… there’s a mistake so I need you to resubmit that… yeah” then this is clearly the case. But guess what, after thinking about it - I agreed, it wasn’t that person’s fault (that I had a meeting with).
I should also add that ACADEMIC B was involved with my level 1 complaint (as can be seen in a pdf file that I have); she also admitted about what I already stated about SUPERVISOR C (the main subject of my level 2 complaint) in a meeting that I, thankfully, recorded; ACADEMIC B left the university about a month after this recording. I also have proof that I did, in fact, have a conversation with ACADEMIC B - before I even made a level 1 complaint - regarding my extreme concerns regarding supervision (in a pdf file).
During the 3 months between the racist incident (first year re-review, that is recorded) and the PhD termination, I had no supervisors and no direct correspondence at all to clarify what is going on with regards to my PhD.
Can you elaborate on what happened?
I’m here for the story too 😮.
The world is messy and answers to questions are often difficult or impossible to find. I don't condone his behavior but the appeal of simple stories that offer unambiguous (but wrong) answers is the driving force behind so much ignorance.
"unambiguous (but wrong) answers is the driving force" That would be Satan. The Liar, adversary of all that is good
Thanks for your good attempts at the pronunciation of Dutch names!
Well I respect him for his honesty.
His motivation for fraud is only messed up in the context of Academia. "I just wanted to tell a neat story" is extremely human. My MA in History tells me (bias) it might be the most human sentence ever said.
Pete could you also help with - at the early stage of career how to combine our skills and create a rare combination of skills which adds value to another which are both useful in company's growth & also sky rocketing our progress ? I have heard about it skill stacking so was keen to know how is it done properly to work at our advantage..
And what about his thesis students? What happened to them and their career prospects?
I’m just curious why the list of most retracted authors has 5 Japanese sounding names in the top 10. Were they all in the same data fraud? Or just pure coincidence that there’s 5 japanese names on there
Of course, there is nothing special about any nationality. I guess there are a lot of people from Asia in that list as it is an extremely competitive environment and also a lot of researchers are from that region. The whole system on many levels involves much more competition in comparison to Europe.
@@salganik my guess is it's either a sign of better oversight (doubtful) or even racist-overfocus on one group (yeah sure Israel is a fascist-leaning country committing CAH, but if you are from the US, maybe focus on solving fascism in the US and CAH in the US a bit more instead of making everything about Israel, we all know the Likud and Hamas are evil).
It's also less-risky to go after someone who isn't in a shared network if you are in a crony-based system.
You know that's a nice summation of him and how he has gone on to show his mistakes, but how do we correct this from not happening to begin with? In some fields it does not really matter, as in what may be in a theoretical field to begin with, and it does not affect a persons everyday life, but in other fields where lets say, you are changing laws on environmental things! Or passing laws on peoples behavior based on false papers or studies, it's affecting people that may have not needed to be affected to begin with! Or it may have economically impacted people, that wouldn't have been impacted if rules or laws weren't imposed on false studies or papers to begin with! How do you correct these issues, where studies may have an impact when used to create changes that affect peoples daily lives, but were never validated to begin with?
I am so glad he confessed his wrongdoing. May he recover and take care of his family.
As painful as it is, they should have revoked the PhD titles of all of his students. Yes, they likely worked hard and yes, it is not their fault. However, PhD is first and foremost a measure of merit, not effort. Further diluting what it means to be a PhD in public eyes is far worse for everybody...