Focus on AM and PW.why only these two?
Mother of
A new marketing / consumer research scandal on sight?
-
Zero evidence that PW or AM did anything wrong, beyond being naive. But so were all the people who reviewed, read, and cited NC's paper without realizing it was fraud.
DA, on the other hand, is a thriving cheat. Can't believe he kept his job after the randbetween scandal.
-
This. I'm not fond of PW or AM, but DA is something else entirely. I wonder why.......
Zero evidence that PW or AM did anything wrong, beyond being naive. But so were all the people who reviewed, read, and cited NC's paper without realizing it was fraud.
DA, on the other hand, is a thriving cheat. Can't believe he kept his job after the randbetween scandal. -
Hi AM how’s going
Zero evidence that PW or AM did anything wrong, beyond being naive. But so were all the people who reviewed, read, and cited NC's paper without realizing it was fraud.
DA, on the other hand, is a thriving cheat. Can't believe he kept his job after the randbetween scandal. -
Do you have private info showing that AM is guilty of fraud? If so, very irresponsible not to share it.
Hi AM how’s going
Zero evidence that PW or AM did anything wrong, beyond being naive. But so were all the people who reviewed, read, and cited NC's paper without realizing it was fraud.
DA, on the other hand, is a thriving cheat. Can't believe he kept his job after the randbetween scandal.
-
Perhaps, an investigation into AM and PW is warranted to clear their names.
Do you have private info showing that AM is guilty of fraud? If so, very irresponsible not to share it.
Hi AM how’s going
Zero evidence that PW or AM did anything wrong, beyond being naive. But so were all the people who reviewed, read, and cited NC's paper without realizing it was fraud.
DA, on the other hand, is a thriving cheat. Can't believe he kept his job after the randbetween scandal.
-
Hello. Although I am not suggesting anything (I am merely asking questions), I am putting some publicly available information here. Can someone provide more information about this?
1 - A study by Patti Williams, Nicole Verrochi Coleman, Andrea C. Morales, and Ludovica Cesareo (2018) - "Connections to Brands That Help Others versus Help the Self: The Impact of Incidental Awe and Pride on Consumer Relationships with Social-Benefit and Luxury Brands" has been retracted. Here is the retraction info: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/24/consumer-research-study-is-retracted-for-unexplained-anomalies/
Summary: 1st, 3rd, and 4th authors retracted the paper. All data was collected and analyzed by the 2nd author.
2 - Patti Williams was Nicole Coleman's committee chair/advisor. Sources: https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/pw-vitae-April-2017.pdf, and the JCR paper what was a Co-Winner of Ferber Award (award to papers based on doctoral dissertations): http://www.ejcr.org/ferberaward.htm (see year 2014 and the paper).
3 - Nicole Coleman's faculty page (https://www.business.pitt.edu/people/nicole-verrochi-coleman) lists several publications (and working papers) with Patti Williams and Andrea Morales - examples include https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/44/2/283/2939533, https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/46/1/99/5049929. The retracted article is still on her page.
4 - When you go to Andrea C. Morales updated CV or page (https://wpcarey.asu.edu/people/profile/837523), NO research with Nicole Coleman is listed. Nothing. Just do a Ctrl+F and search for Coleman. The same is true for Morales' Google Scholar Page: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_eZDZvYAAAAJ&hl=en. There are no mentions to the publications or working papers.
5 - The same is true for Patti Williams' page (https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/pattiw/#research). The ferber award paper is there, but nothing else. All disappeared. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Rh121jwAAAAJ&hl=en
6 - I couldn't access Coleman's Google Scholar Citations page. -
Do you have private info showing that AM is guilty of fraud? If so, very irresponsible not to share it.
Hi AM how’s going
Zero evidence that PW or AM did anything wrong, beyond being naive. But so were all the people who reviewed, read, and cited NC's paper without realizing it was fraud.
DA, on the other hand, is a thriving cheat. Can't believe he kept his job after the randbetween scandal.
Apply the p-curve to AM's papers.
-
Frightening how many people can't tell the difference between p-hacking (70% of marketing papers) and fraud (~5-10% of papers).
Do you have private info showing that AM is guilty of fraud? If so, very irresponsible not to share it.
Hi AM how’s going
Zero evidence that PW or AM did anything wrong, beyond being naive. But so were all the people who reviewed, read, and cited NC's paper without realizing it was fraud.
DA, on the other hand, is a thriving cheat. Can't believe he kept his job after the randbetween scandal.Apply the p-curve to AM's papers.
-
So high percentage?
Frightening how many people can't tell the difference between p-hacking (70% of marketing papers) and fraud (~5-10% of papers).
Do you have private info showing that AM is guilty of fraud? If so, very irresponsible not to share it.
Hi AM how’s going
Zero evidence that PW or AM did anything wrong, beyond being naive. But so were all the people who reviewed, read, and cited NC's paper without realizing it was fraud.
DA, on the other hand, is a thriving cheat. Can't believe he kept his job after the randbetween scandal.Apply the p-curve to AM's papers.