Close

Complete Captcha

• 2 years - 168 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 652 Goods vs 310 No Goods

1. Economist
   585b
   

   This is certainly not true.

   Most researchers like a snitch when the snitch is right and successful. Especially when the crime is as severe as this one.

   Or are you seriously saying that most researchers dislike people who find evidence of research fraud? That’s not my experience at all.

   I do think that many academics unfortunately prefer conformists who do not point out bad research practices. But outright research fraud like the one described here is a different matter.

   I'd recommend not to do anything. It never ends well for whistle-blowers. Can you name me one whistle-blower who is living a comfy life and has a good career? Exactly, there aren't any.
   Blowing the whistle alienates the people you blow the whistle on and sends a loud and clear signal that you're trouble to all future employers. Nobody is looking for someone to challenge them and keep them honest. What they're looking first and foremost is a team player and a team player doesn't betray the team. You either voice your concerns to the team leader and you do so quietly and politely or you leave, but you never speak out in public against the team.

   This is how it is done. Make sure that the paper does not see the light of day, by asking a few annoying questions internally, but don't make a big scandal out of it.
   Yes, you will be celebrated by the open science ppl but at the end of the day nobody likes a snitch.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 0 Vlad !

2. Economist
   bcc3
   

   Are you serious? If everyone throughout history would’ve reasoned like you do in this post, we’d probably still be sitting in some tent somewhere trying to treat lethal diseases with magic.
   It often ends well in the long run for many of those whistle-blowers and dissidents who are successful. But even when it doesn’t end well, these people are often the ones who change history for the better. People like you rarely do.

   First, I'm not looking to "change history" whatever that even might mean: I have a mortgage, a wife, and a kid. My first responsibility is towards them. I presume that OP is or will want to be in a similar situation: this is what the overwhelming majority wants.

   Second, read what I wrote. There is an alternative open to you that doesn't involve being a whistle-blower: Voice your concerns internally and do it quietly and politely. Make it clear that you're a team player.

   Third, no there aren't any happy whistle-blowers. Would you want to switch places with an Assange or a Snowden? Don't be an idiot. Nothing changed because of their actions. It's the behavior of a puerile man-child to speak out loudly. If you want to change, you need to move the team that you're part of slowly in a more appropriate direction. Don't throw the baby (the team) out with the bathwater (the bad behavior).

   2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 6 Vlad !

3. Economist
   ed97
   

   Go ahead, tell on them. It's a net benefit for me, if only for the entertainment value. I tried to be helpful by being honest about the personal costs. Honestly I'm hoping you will ignore the naysayers and bring some excitement to the field.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   bcc3
   

   Can you name a few economists whose career improved because of being a snitch?

   This is certainly not true.
   Most researchers like a snitch when the snitch is right and successful. Especially when the crime is as severe as this one.
   Or are you seriously saying that most researchers dislike people who find evidence of research fraud? That’s not my experience at all.
   I do think that many academics unfortunately prefer conformists who do not point out bad research practices. But outright research fraud like the one described here is a different matter.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 3 Vlad !

5. Economist
   3a1e
   

   Before proceeding, I apologize in advance for my mediocre English.

   The first part of your post is extremely ignorant and inaccurate. However, writing an adequate reply, including relevant citations and references, would demand too much of my time. Thus, I will simply ignore that part for today.

   The second part of your post is perhaps slightly more interesting, albeit still extremely predictable and incorrect. I’ll ignore the introductory ”puerile man-child” statement since it provides no useful information besides some shallow insight into your arrogant and highly unscientific view of people who ”speak out loudly”. However, let me make some quick comments on the rest:

   Throughout history, I’d say that attempts to ”move the team that you're part of slowly in a more appropriate direction” has often turned out very badly for society. There are thousands of convincing cases where ”throwing the baby (the team) out with the bathwater (the bad behavior)” has led to important and necessary changes. You must know this yourself, if you just think for a few seconds. The obvious reason why your ”argument” is flawed is that incentives are usually not changed by ”trying to change the team from within”. But perhaps you do not agree that the incentives usually need to change if people’s behaviour should change?

   I’d say your worldview is that of a naive little man-child who never wants to make any uncomfortable decision. In fact, you sound just like some predictable corporate social responsibility charlatan. You just don’t realize it.

   The Assange example is also a bad one for many obvious reasons (the rape allegations being just one of them). The Snowden example is also not very good, partly because of the fact that he will most likely be pardoned in the future, but primarily because most available evidence suggests that Snowden DID make a (and still does make) a huge difference, in contrast to his co-workers who did nothing.

   Are you serious? If everyone throughout history would’ve reasoned like you do in this post, we’d probably still be sitting in some tent somewhere trying to treat lethal diseases with magic.
   It often ends well in the long run for many of those whistle-blowers and dissidents who are successful. But even when it doesn’t end well, these people are often the ones who change history for the better. People like you rarely do.

   First, I'm not looking to "change history" whatever that even might mean: I have a mortgage, a wife, and a kid. My first responsibility is towards them. I presume that OP is or will want to be in a similar situation: this is what the overwhelming majority wants.
   Second, read what I wrote. There is an alternative open to you that doesn't involve being a whistle-blower: Voice your concerns internally and do it quietly and politely. Make it clear that you're a team player.
   Third, no there aren't any happy whistle-blowers. Would you want to switch places with an Assange or a Snowden? Don't be an idiot. Nothing changed because of their actions. It's the behavior of a puerile man-child to speak out loudly. If you want to change, you need to move the team that you're part of slowly in a more appropriate direction. Don't throw the baby (the team) out with the bathwater (the bad behavior).

   2 years ago # QUOTE 6 Volod 1 Vlad !

6. Economist
   5d8d
   

   I have no idea what 72d7 is trying to say.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 6 Vlad !

7. Economist
   bcc3
   

   Please do give some actual examples of whistle-blowers doing well. I can't in good conscience recommend anyone to be a whistle-blower.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 4 Vlad !

8. Economist
   3a1e
   

   Define ”snitch”, so that we are talking about the same thing.

   Can you name a few economists whose career improved because of being a snitch?

   This is certainly not true.
   Most researchers like a snitch when the snitch is right and successful. Especially when the crime is as severe as this one.
   Or are you seriously saying that most researchers dislike people who find evidence of research fraud? That’s not my experience at all.
   I do think that many academics unfortunately prefer conformists who do not point out bad research practices. But outright research fraud like the one described here is a different matter.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   bcc3
   

   I have no idea what 72d7 is trying to say.

   It's difficult to parse. That's for sure.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 5 Vlad !

10. Economist
    d6a6
    

    How do you expect this to play out? Referees are not data police because academia is based on the assumption that people are not frauds. What are they supposed to write in their reports? "For reasons that I cannot disclose I have reason to suspect the data quality and thus I demand you share your data"?? The fact is that it's very difficult for OP to report this in a way that won't be traced to him. As others said, the best he can do is document as much evidence as possible and then go public. While researchers often don't use best practices, I think almost all of us have zero tolerance for fraud and would support someone who takes personal risk to expose it.

    Why not just send an anonymous comment to the referees?

    Wild guess: Nothing was done

    ^ Yeah, any updates?
    

    2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

11. Economist
    5c65
    

    Define ”snitch”, so that we are talking about the same thing.

    Economists that made a big public reveal of scientific misconduct of their supervisor or another co-author.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 4 Vlad !

12. Economist
    2b87
    

    I reckon 72d7 gets his/her point accross. I’m not too familiar with Snowden or Assange, but I reckon 72d7 makes some valid points about incentives: You rarely change incentives by naive attempts to ”move the team that you're part of slowly in a more appropriate direction”.

    I have no idea what 72d7 is trying to say.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 1 Vlad !

13. Economist
    d6a6
    

    By the way, the guy who uncovered the Lacour scandal in poli sci got an AP job at Stanford and is now back at Berkeley, his alma mater. Admittedly Lacour was another grad student and not his supervisor, but it shows that social scientists are willing to support whistleblowers.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    4b89
    

    Bit of a tangent but question, suppose you found out a person had been using a remote access Trojan (Google it) since undergrad to spy on fellow students and professors, and basically had access to problem sets, exams, letters of reference and the personal files/notes of their professors. Suppose this person did their PhD at the HRM of HRMs and is now a professor themselves with a successful publishing record. Would there be any repercussion if the privacy violations they had made (and presumably are still doing) were discovered?

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    2ab4
    

    I concur with this statement. The user 40C9 tries his best to sound logical but just comes of as naive.

    I reckon 72d7 gets his/her point accross. I’m not too familiar with Snowden or Assange, but I reckon 72d7 makes some valid points about incentives: You rarely change incentives by naive attempts to ”move the team that you're part of slowly in a more appropriate direction”.

    I have no idea what 72d7 is trying to say.
    

    2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    2ab4
    

    Come one, man. There are some decent points in there.

    I have no idea what 72d7 is trying to say.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

17. Economist
    def6
    

    By the way, the guy who uncovered the Lacour scandal in poli sci got an AP job at Stanford and is now back at Berkeley, his alma mater. Admittedly Lacour was another grad student and not his supervisor, but it shows that social scientists are willing to support whistleblowers.

    You have to be careful with drawing conclusions like that from the Lacour scandal. The guy who uncovered the scandal (Broockman) personally knew and was professionally close to Lacour's coauthor (Green), and Broockman and his coauthors contacted Green first with their evidence.

    Green then asked Lacour's adviser to ask Lacour in-person for the data. Lacour's adviser told Green that Lacour claimed to have deleted the data, after which Green contacted Science and asked for a retraction.

    I highly doubt that the process would have been that quick if the whistleblower had no personal/professional relationship with Green (or at least one much more distant than the one Broockman had).

    Also, I recall that Broockman himself admitted in an interview that basically everyone on his committee and all of his then-future Stanford colleagues told him to back off, let it go, and just focus on his own research. So they were not willing to support a whistleblower until it became "easy" to do so.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

18. Economist
    4b68
    

    Sure. But it’s still stupid to argue that most researchers would somehow dislike individuals who ”snitch” when colleagues commit research fraud.

    By the way, the guy who uncovered the Lacour scandal in poli sci got an AP job at Stanford and is now back at Berkeley, his alma mater. Admittedly Lacour was another grad student and not his supervisor, but it shows that social scientists are willing to support whistleblowers.

    You have to be careful with drawing conclusions like that from the Lacour scandal. The guy who uncovered the scandal (Broockman) personally knew and was professionally close to Lacour's coauthor (Green), and Broockman and his coauthors contacted Green first with their evidence.
    Green then asked Lacour's adviser to ask Lacour in-person for the data. Lacour's adviser told Green that Lacour claimed to have deleted the data, after which Green contacted Science and asked for a retraction.
    I highly doubt that the process would have been that quick if the whistleblower had no personal/professional relationship with Green (or at least one much more distant than the one Broockman had).
    Also, I recall that Broockman himself admitted in an interview that basically everyone on his committee and all of his then-future Stanford colleagues told him to back off, let it go, and just focus on his own research. So they were not willing to support a whistleblower until it became "easy" to do so.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

19. Economist
    bcc3
    

    I concur with this statement. The user 40C9 tries his best to sound logical but just comes of as naive.

    I reckon 72d7 gets his/her point accross. I’m not too familiar with Snowden or Assange, but I reckon 72d7 makes some valid points about incentives: You rarely change incentives by naive attempts to ”move the team that you're part of slowly in a more appropriate direction”.

    I have no idea what 72d7 is trying to say.
    

    When push comes to shove please try and blow the whistle. It is net benefit for me. But you'd be foolish to do that.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

20. Economist
    0e24
    

    Or just blow me that would be also good

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »