Yes. Literally.
What does it mean to say someone is a straight shooter? Does marketing have “crooked shooters”? People who go around bragging about manipulating data?
Not saying anything about LG or AS (don’t know much about them), but I’m pretty sure that every cheater would be called a straight shooter by their friends and coauthors before being caught.Not sure. I know LG and AS pretty well, they’re straight shooters. AS comes from quant, and that was LG’s JMP.
This paper (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022243718821960#_i32) has also been removed from Andrew Stephen's Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WE9bytEAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate).
The question is: why?
BTW: he'll be one of the JCR co-editors (2021-2023)
I expect open science practices will become mandatory very soonBragging? Literally? Wtf?
I know that people might do it secretly, but bragging?A lot of the time they just weren’t trained in what was appropriate. People tell on themselves!
A new marketing / consumer research scandal on sight?
-
-
If JCR/JMR are going to continue to publish papers with 15 imagination lab studies (which have 0% replication rate on DataColada), then having all co-authors "handle the data" is just a waste of time. Require authors to put all the data and code up on OSF, and clever people can scrape them to help identify the fraudsters. Quant people who recognize what a service to marketing that would be, just promise that whichever PhD student manages to do that effectively, give him/her a job at your school.
-
My point: a lot of people disclose data manipulation or... questionable design choices because they don’t know they did it. They will even brag about being inventive. Some will straight up brag about doing something they know to be wrong
Exhibit A: Wansink, Brian
-
Isn't it better to be an average researcher than to deal with all this mess (in case you get caught)?
I mean... something is better than nothing, right?Big shot fraudsters were financially all set when caught. They would have never made that much money by being an average researcher.
-
But given their suffering and humiliation, I doubt they were happy about their decision.
Yes... so weird. It's embarrassing. You can see NC's FB, and some comments/love/like from the other authors on family pictures. It's just too weird. Of course, I'm talking about public photos (I don't know any of the authors)
-
But given their suffering and humiliation, I doubt they were happy about their decision.
Yes... so weird. It's embarrassing. You can see NC's FB, and some comments/love/like from the other authors on family pictures. It's just too weird. Of course, I'm talking about public photos (I don't know any of the authors)
To me, the circumstances surrounding this retraction are weird. So, the three co-authors somehow decided to analyze the old data (collected several years ago) that they had not bothered to check even during the JCR review process. I'm probably missing something, but it's just odd.
-
More likely what happened: researcher X wanted to replicate a past experiment she ran. Researcher X asked the research team for the data. They sent it to researcher X. Researcher X finds duplicates in data, or that outliers have been trimmed, or some other irregularity. Researcher X notifies the Data Police privately and the process of going through her other projects begins. Co-authors hear about this, see the writing on the wall, and request to have paper retracted before forced to from others.
-
so are you suggest co-authors knew but was silent until it leaked out?
The other alternative is that in one of their on-going projects, they realized that NC was doing some fishy stuff with the data collection. Seeing this, they could have asked her to provide her data for all other publications they had together. For one article, they caught her errors/fraud, and did not want to have any association with that.