Harvard University's recent hiring decision has sparked controversy due to allegations of scientific fraud involving the new hire. The individual in question was previously accused of manipulating pre-event estimates by a factor of 1.8, which significantly altered research results. This manipulation was detected and the fraudulent work was retracted. The broader context of this incident is part of a larger discussion on the rise of scientific misconduct, which has been exacerbated by increased competitiveness, publication pressures, and a post-truth society. Ivan Oransky spoke with New York magazine about the surge in fake research and fraud accusations against the presidents of Harvard and Stanford. Recently, Wiley, a major academic publisher, shut down 19 science journals and retracted 11,000 papers deemed fake, highlighting the pervasive issue of fraudulent research in academia. This situation underscores the need for stronger safeguards and integrity measures in scientific publishing, as emphasized by RetractionWatch.
“Data integrity watchdogs call for stronger safeguards in scientific journals.” https://t.co/FM9GMpwUlF https://t.co/8EBAiYf9Cq
“Wiley’s ‘fake science’ scandal is just the latest chapter in a broader crisis of trust universities must address.” https://t.co/xkI03zQxES https://t.co/ou7Erg7PqL
Trust The “Science”…That Just Retracted 11,000 “Peer Reviewed” Papers “It’s not just a scam, it’s an industry…” https://t.co/7509aQbYHz
Once more for those at the back: Scientific publishers, and even a disappointing number of academic editors, are entirely unconcerned with whether what they put out there is true or not, or even if it's meaningful. "All the news that fits, we print." https://t.co/WoUR7825gC
Current leaders of universities and science funders are presiding over an era of unchecked research waste, caused by the same old toxic incentives, but now turbo charged by predatory publishing *as the default* + "AI"...
How academic publishers profit from the publish-or-perish culture https://t.co/Wz56w3IeYn | opinion
So much for “peer review” — Wiley shuts down 19 science journals and retracts 11,000 papers that were determined to be fake without ever noticing: https://t.co/lgukV8bMYK "It’s not just a scam, it’s an industry"
.@KevinTDugan spoke with @ivanoransky about why there has been a surge in fake research and whether fraud accusations against the presidents of Harvard and Stanford are actually good for academia. https://t.co/m68PgOaYWy https://t.co/VLsRxFmfok
“The emergence of intensified competitiveness, heightened publication pressures, and the context of a post-truth society have fostered an environment encouraging significant scientific misconduct.” https://t.co/ssYwQ8P2zE https://t.co/Bt1q83bCFU
“Why Scientific Fraud Is Suddenly Everywhere.” Our Ivan Oransky speaks with New York magazine. https://t.co/06HQOHjfbI https://t.co/v9qdmNMxw8
This is a baffling choice by Harvard. This guy eliminated a pre-trend by dividing two of the pre-event estimates by exactly 1.8, materially changing the result. But that's simply fraud and it was immediately detected and retracted. So why would Harvard bring him on? https://t.co/PTYqBirlJq
This is a baffling choice by Harvard. This guy eliminated a pre-trend by multiplying two of the pre-event estimates by exactly 1.8, materially changing the result. But that's simply fraud and it was immediately detected and retracted. So why would Harvard bring him on? https://t.co/PTYqBirlJq
This is a baffling choice by Harvard. This guy eliminated a pre-trend by multiplying two of the pre-event estimates by exactly 1.8, materially changing the result. But that's simply fraud and it was immediately detected and retracted. So why did Harvard hire him? https://t.co/PTYqBiqNTS
This is a baffling choice by Harvard. This guy eliminated a pre-trend by multiplying one of the pre-event estimates by 1.8, materially changing the result. But that's simply fraud and it was immediately detected and retracted. So why did Harvard hire him? https://t.co/PTYqBiqNTS