QA pissed a lot of people at JM with connections all over. All I can say is they are watching and not from a distant.
Nah...
A new marketing / consumer research scandal on sight?
-
So you are saying reviewers might shoot down his papers not because they are not good enough, but because he aggravated the wrong people?
Somehow that's even worse: It means that peer review = cronyism.
It’s not a threat and sorry it came out that way- all iam saying is the same people might review his papers and what do you think will happen?
-
If you're actually an AE, and what you're saying about other AEs is true, y'all don't have your priorities in order. What's more distasteful: Writing a paper with fake results, or talking about faked results? If whistleblowers face more backlash than fraudsters, we will have the field we deserve.
From many conversations with AEs the main issue is he condemned the two authors by tweeting about the missing link without due process. As an AE I found that distasteful.
-
What does "due process" mean? Aren't papers published and disseminated specifically so that other scholars can discuss and critique them? Sure, QA could have handled things differently. But I don't know why he or anyone else has any special obligation to get the green light from the gatekeepers who failed on the job before expressing skepticism.
Know what I find far more distasteful? That the gatekeepers who published such obviously shoddy work placed all the blame on the messenger instead of taking responsibility. That they put out that utterly disgraceful "expression of concern" that reinforced all the reasons why "top" marketing journals are seen as a laughingstock. And that they seem to care much more about protecting politically-connected serial fraudsters than a junior scholar taking on the thankless task of improving the standards of the field. Maybe we need better AEs.
-
Are you surprised? Remember, they don't think any of these
"(1) data appearing in the spreadsheet files when no values were present in the original surveys; (2) data in the spreadsheet files having different values from those that appear in the original surveys; (3) large outliers (outside the valid response range) whose values were changed in the entered data; and (4) entries in the original survey being scratched over with new results circled"
count as "faking results."
If you're actually an AE, and what you're saying about other AEs is true, y'all don't have your priorities in order. What's more distasteful: Writing a paper with fake results, or talking about faked results? If whistleblowers face more backlash than fraudsters, we will have the field we deserve.
From many conversations with AEs the main issue is he condemned the two authors by tweeting about the missing link without due process. As an AE I found that distasteful.
-
This just shows you’ve never dealt with paper surveys. Data entry errors happen. 3 is the only thing I find more than likely a sin of commission, not omission.
Are you surprised? Remember, they don't think any of these
"(1) data appearing in the spreadsheet files when no values were present in the original surveys; (2) data in the spreadsheet files having different values from those that appear in the original surveys; (3) large outliers (outside the valid response range) whose values were changed in the entered data; and (4) entries in the original survey being scratched over with new results circled"
count as "faking results."If you're actually an AE, and what you're saying about other AEs is true, y'all don't have your priorities in order. What's more distasteful: Writing a paper with fake results, or talking about faked results? If whistleblowers face more backlash than fraudsters, we will have the field we deserve.
From many conversations with AEs the main issue is he condemned the two authors by tweeting about the missing link without due process. As an AE I found that distasteful.
-
"As an AE myself, I have literally no shame blah blah blah." Looks like it's time for a house cleaning party!
From many conversations with AEs the main issue is he condemned the two authors by tweeting about the missing link without due process. As an AE I found that distasteful.
-
Seems more omission than commission (expression of concern says "it was found that the results do not change when correcting for these anomalies")...but an EOC still made sense. Where an EOC makes less sense (a retraction more) is the one for DA--he could not "locate the original data." This was prior to the recent dishonesty scandal...guess folks wanted to cut him some slack back then.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976211035782This just shows you’ve never dealt with paper surveys. Data entry errors happen. 3 is the only thing I find more than likely a sin of commission, not omission.
Are you surprised? Remember, they don't think any of these
"(1) data appearing in the spreadsheet files when no values were present in the original surveys; (2) data in the spreadsheet files having different values from those that appear in the original surveys; (3) large outliers (outside the valid response range) whose values were changed in the entered data; and (4) entries in the original survey being scratched over with new results circled"
count as "faking results."If you're actually an AE, and what you're saying about other AEs is true, y'all don't have your priorities in order. What's more distasteful: Writing a paper with fake results, or talking about faked results? If whistleblowers face more backlash than fraudsters, we will have the field we deserve.
From many conversations with AEs the main issue is he condemned the two authors by tweeting about the missing link without due process. As an AE I found that distasteful.
-
Yeah I think the EOC in this case is perfectly fine- and it’s a good thing they took pains to say “the alternative analyses hold up.” The DA article…. I mean prior to the latest mess that also makes some sense- they replicated the findings but the original paper is suspect. I’m not surprised people can’t find data from 2003. It’s probably on a Zip disk somewhere (remember those?!). That’s why EOCs exist.
Seems more omission than commission (expression of concern says "it was found that the results do not change when correcting for these anomalies")...but an EOC still made sense. Where an EOC makes less sense (a retraction more) is the one for DA--he could not "locate the original data." This was prior to the recent dishonesty scandal...guess folks wanted to cut him some slack back then.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976211035782> -
If you're actually an AE, and what you're saying about other AEs is true, y'all don't have your priorities in order. What's more distasteful: Writing a paper with fake results, or talking about faked results? If whistleblowers face more backlash than fraudsters, we will have the field we deserve.
From many conversations with AEs the main issue is he condemned the two authors by tweeting about the missing link without due process. As an AE I found that distasteful.
So you are saying reviewers might shoot down his papers not because they are not good enough, but because he aggravated the wrong people?
Somehow that's even worse: It means that peer review = cronyism.It’s not a threat and sorry it came out that way- all iam saying is the same people might review his papers and what do you think will happen?
Of course we know peer review is cronyism… sad but true you think it was actually straightforward?
-
The EOC would have been more than sufficient if these anomalies were the extent of the problems with the paper. Everyone knows that data entry errors happen, and no one cares.
The real issue is the results themselves: the effect sizes are so outlandish that they resemble nothing else in the social sciences. As in, multiple studies that estimate the effect of ambient temperature on WTP at Cohen's d > 2.0. For comparison, DC estimated the effect size of liking eggs on frequency of eating egg salad at Cohen's d = 0.59.
Anyone who knows that knows that these effects could not possibly have come from real data. And JS has literally fabricated data before, so no one is giving her the benefit of the doubt. The EOC does absolutely nothing to address the real issue, and that's why it is so deeply unsatisfying.
Seems more omission than commission (expression of concern says "it was found that the results do not change when correcting for these anomalies")...but an EOC still made sense.
-
While the effect of ambient temperature on WTP at d>2.0 is unbelievable, there are some cases (not this one!!) where demand effects can actually increase sample sizes.
Very obvious manipulations or very clean tests can yield high Cohen d's. Higher than the 0.59, for example.