I actually think that take gives too much self-awareness to CB researchers. Most genuinely think they are learning things when mining MTurk for noise.
A new marketing / consumer research scandal on sight?
-
Nah that is not true. This was another author (SB). And i still wonder why no win and only one honorable mention
Oh man they chose not to give the Ferber at ACR that year. It was incredibly awkward. Everyone wondered why the paper didn’t qualify and why the committee didn’t give it the award, as it was the only runner up.
-
Everyone beating up CB research: see Psych Science. There are unethical careerist people everywhere, including marketing, but also in every other field. Also, I agree that JCR will go to open science after this. They have to. And do you see that this has already destroyed NC’s career? There’s no way she would have left otherwise. And who knows what happens to her co-authors? The costs for this are really high. But we also have to not crucify people who make retractions. Better they make them than they don’t.
-
The people with power in CB don't want open science, because it challenges their power. They don't know how fake data is detected, so they lose control (and ultimately increase their risk of embarrassment). They have more to lose, because open science gives more power to people who understand stats better, which the average older person in CB doesn't. So maybe JCR will introduce open data / open code /pre-registration / replications, but it won't happen without an enormous fight.
-
The people with power in CB don't want open science, because it challenges their power. They don't know how fake data is detected, so they lose control (and ultimately increase their risk of embarrassment). They have more to lose, because open science gives more power to people who understand stats better, which the average older person in CB doesn't. So maybe JCR will introduce open data / open code /pre-registration / replications, but it won't happen without an enormous fight.
Can someone share some resources related to learning how to detect fake data? I am aware of the GRIM test (https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-grim-test-a-method-for-evaluating-published-research-9a4e5f05e870), I'm aware of checking the frequency of last digits, comparison of reported effect sizes with well-known effect sizes such as average height of men vs. women, and even some other basic stuff. But what else?
I really miss having some textbook-kind thing on detecting irregularities and fake data.
-
You are correct. That may have been the most embarrassed I’ve ever been for someone.
Nah that is not true. This was another author (SB). And i still wonder why no win and only one honorable mention
Oh man they chose not to give the Ferber at ACR that year. It was incredibly awkward. Everyone wondered why the paper didn’t qualify and why the committee didn’t give it the award, as it was the only runner up.
-
To be fair you’ve basically needed to preregister to get into psych science for 6 or so years now as a result of... all that
Everyone beating up CB research: see Psych Science. There are unethical careerist people everywhere, including marketing, but also in every other field. Also, I agree that JCR will go to open science after this. They have to. And do you see that this has already destroyed NC’s career? There’s no way she would have left otherwise. And who knows what happens to her co-authors? The costs for this are really high. But we also have to not crucify people who make retractions. Better they make them than they don’t.
-
The people with power in CB don't want open science, because it challenges their power.
Probably because they know that the majority of JCR/JMR findings prior to, say, 2015 will not replicate.
Well JCR/JMR findings today have a replication rate of 0%. I really don't think standards have changed much in CB (maybe there are n=50 per cell now, rather than 30). And the people in power have nothing to worry about on papers published before 2015. An introduction of open science practices would clearly not be retrospective.
-
Whatever happened to JL from Miami?
Also, it'll be awkward at upitt since the editor of jcr is ji and nc is recently tenured in his dept. I wonder if other pitt people cheat, like CL who just moved to Wharton. Seems a bit too productive. US from colada should investigate.
-
Whatever happened to JL from Miami?
Also, it'll be awkward at upitt since the editor of jcr is ji and nc is recently tenured in his dept. I wonder if other pitt people cheat, like CL who just moved to Wharton. Seems a bit too productive. US from colada should investigate.A few CB people are almost impossibly too productive.
-
Whatever happened to JL from Miami?
Also, it'll be awkward at upitt since the editor of jcr is ji and nc is recently tenured in his dept. I wonder if other pitt people cheat, like CL who just moved to Wharton. Seems a bit too productive. US from colada should investigate.A few CB people are almost impossibly too productive.
some of it is structural- like at Stanford you basically have an army of RA's to turn your ideas into data. Others never sleep (JB, DA).
-
Whatever happened to JL from Miami?
Also, it'll be awkward at upitt since the editor of jcr is ji and nc is recently tenured in his dept. I wonder if other pitt people cheat, like CL who just moved to Wharton. Seems a bit too productive. US from colada should investigate.A few CB people are almost impossibly too productive.
some of it is structural- like at Stanford you basically have an army of RA's to turn your ideas into data. Others never sleep (JB, DA).
And others......
-
Whatever happened to JL from Miami?
Also, it'll be awkward at upitt since the editor of jcr is ji and nc is recently tenured in his dept. I wonder if other pitt people cheat, like CL who just moved to Wharton. Seems a bit too productive. US from colada should investigate.A few CB people are almost impossibly too productive.
some of it is structural- like at Stanford you basically have an army of RA's to turn your ideas into data. Others never sleep (JB, DA).
Lol I like to imagine them conducting their experiments overnight with sleepwalking subjects.
-
Just saw that Williams and Morales omit prior pubs with Nicole from their cvs. I think this is unethical ... the papers are out there still, have not been retracted, have their names on it, count towards stuff like FT rankings etc. If they now disown those papers, they must formally ask for their retraction.
-
Just saw that Williams and Morales omit prior pubs with Nicole from their cvs. I think this is unethical ... the papers are out there still, have not been retracted, have their names on it, count towards stuff like FT rankings etc. If they now disown those papers, they must formally ask for their retraction.
I think this will happen eventually - even if they don't formally ask for it. Someone will question the editors, etc.
-
A bit of insider background... this was a long time coming. There is a history here and it's not just about NC handling her own data. She may be catching the brunt of a bigger issue surrounding unreasonable success rates, and volume for that matter, out of some of her coauthor's "labs." Anyone who knows who these people are knows exactly who I am talking about. There's been a whole generation of "cute" research done by a group that has benefited from one of these individual's access to subjects that magically never fail to support a hypothesis.
-
Just saw that Williams and Morales omit prior pubs with Nicole from their cvs. I think this is unethical ... the papers are out there still, have not been retracted, have their names on it, count towards stuff like FT rankings etc. If they now disown those papers, they must formally ask for their retraction.
Who's to say these other retractions aren't coming? Count be on the horizon.