[98] Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty - Data Colada
This post is co-authored with a team of researchers who have chosen to remain anonymous. They uncovered most of the evidence reported in this post. These researchers are not connected in any way to the papers described herein. *** In 2012, Shu, Mazar, Gino, Ariely, and Bazerman published a three-stu...
Hasnain says:
The original paper’s authors respond at the end, but this is a really detailed analysis of what does appear to be a fraudulent dataset - invalidating an influential paper. Also really ironic that the paper itself was about studying people’s dishonesty.
“We have worked on enough fraud cases in the last decade to know that scientific fraud is more common than is convenient to believe, and that it does not happen only on the periphery of science. Addressing the problem of scientific fraud should not be left to a few anonymous (and fed up and frightened) whistleblowers and some (fed up and frightened) bloggers to root out. The consequences of fraud are experienced collectively, so eliminating it should be a collective endeavor. What can everyone do?
There will never be a perfect solution, but there is an obvious step to take: Data should be posted. The fabrication in this paper was discovered because the data were posted. If more data were posted, fraud would be easier to catch. And if fraud is easier to catch, some potential fraudsters may be more reluctant to do it. Other disciplines are already doing this. For example, many top economics journals require authors to post their raw data [16]. There is really no excuse. All of our journals should require data posting.”
Posted on 2021-08-17T19:51:38+0000