{"id":123,"date":"2011-11-01T21:53:25","date_gmt":"2011-11-01T21:53:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rulesofreason.wordpress.com\/?p=123"},"modified":"2011-11-01T21:53:25","modified_gmt":"2011-11-01T21:53:25","slug":"academic-fraud-reaching-new-hights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=123","title":{"rendered":"Academic fraud reaching new heights"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Academic \u00a0fraud is reaching new <del>heights<\/del> lows. Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel (Tilburg University)\u00a0 is the culprit this time.<\/p>\n<p>A commission looking into the issue came up with a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tilburguniversity.edu\/nl\/nieuws-en-agenda\/commissie-levelt\/interim-rapport.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">report<\/a> [in Dutch] on Monday saying that &#8220;the extent of fraud is very significant&#8221; (p.5). Stapel fabricated data for <strong>at least 30 papers<\/strong> published over a period of at least nine years (the investigation is still ongoing, the number can rise up to 150). Entire datasets supporting his hypotheses were made up from thin air. He also frequently gave fabricated data to colleagues and PhD students to analyze and co-author papers together.<\/p>\n<p>Diederik Stapel <del>is<\/del> was an eminent and &#8216;charismatic&#8217; scholar whose research made global news on more than one occasion. He has been awarded a <strong>Pioneer<\/strong> grant by the Dutch National Science \u00a0Foundation. He is the man behind all these <del>sexy <\/del>made-up findings:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/pss.sagepub.com\/content\/21\/5\/737.short\" target=\"_blank\">Power increases hypocrisy<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.sciencedaily.com\/releases\/2011\/06\/110615120351.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Sexy doesn&#8217;t always sell<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.sciencemag.org\/content\/332\/6026\/251.short\" target=\"_blank\">Messy surroundings promote stereotyping and discrimination<\/a> (published in Science!)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.dutchdailynews.com\/meat-eaters-selfish-less-social\/\" target=\"_blank\">Meat-eaters \u00a0are anti-social<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>What a painfully ironic turn of events for Stapel who also \u00a0published a <a href=\"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1002\/(SICI)1099-0992(199903\/05)29:2\/3%3C397::AID-EJSP936%3E3.0.CO;2-6\/abstract\" target=\"_blank\">paper<\/a> on the way scientists react to a plagiarism scandal.<\/p>\n<p>The whole affair first came to light this August when three young colleagues of Stapel suspected \u00a0that something isn&#8217;t quite right and informed the University. What is especially worrisome is that on a number of previous occasions people have implicated Stapel in wrongdoing but their signals had not been followed. \u00a0In hindsight, it is easy to see that the data is just too good to be true &#8211; always yielding incredibly big effects supporting the hypotheses, no missing data and outliers, etc. He didn&#8217;t even show any finesse or statistical sophistication in the fabrication. Still, co-authors, reviewers, and journal editors failed to spot the fraud for so many years and so many papers.<\/p>\n<p>Stapel responds that the mistakes he has done are &#8220;<strong>not because of self-interest<\/strong>&#8220;. Interesting&#8230; A longer statement is expected on Monday. Tilburg University has already suspended Stapel \u00a0and \u00a0will decide \u00a0what other measures \u00a0to take once all investigations are over.<\/p>\n<p>There are so many things going wrong on so many different levels here but I will only comment on the role of the academic \u00a0journals in this affair. How is it possible that all the reviewers missed the clues that something is fishy? A close reading should have revealed a pattern of improbably successful results. But are suspicions that results are too good to be true enough to reject an article? Probably not. But suspicions are enough to request more details about how the data was gathered. And, at the very least, the reviewers could have alerted the editors. It is probably too far-fetched to expect the data to be provided with the submission for review but a close inspection of summary statistics, cross-correlations and the like could have detected the fabrication.<\/p>\n<p>But the bigger problem is the lack of incentives for replication. A pattern of strong results that cannot be replicated would have uncovered \u00a0the fraud much quicker but, of course, nobody (or very few) bothered to replicate. And why would they? \u00a0In a recent case, a leading psychology journal which initially <a href=\"http:\/\/psycnet.apa.org\/journals\/psp\/100\/3\/407\/\" target=\"_blank\">published<\/a> some outlandish claims for the effects of <strong>precognition<\/strong> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.newscientist.com\/article\/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition.html\" target=\"_blank\">refused to publish <\/a>unsuccessful attempts to repeat the results with the argument that <strong>it doesn&#8217;t publish replications<\/strong>! \u00a0So Stapel might blame the &#8216;publish or perish culture&#8217; for his misdemeanors but journal policies have to share a part of the blame.<\/p>\n<p>On a side note: psychology and social psychology are especially prone to this type of data fabrication. Historians work with document sources that can easily be checked (e.g. when a team of Dutch scholars <a href=\"http:\/\/www.mitpressjournals.org\/doi\/abs\/10.1162\/1520397042350900\" target=\"_blank\">exposed<\/a> the numerous problems with the sources and the evidence in Andrew Moravcsik&#8217;s widely-acclaimed <em>The Choice for Europe<\/em> ). In political science \u00a0and public administration data is often derived from the analysis of documents and observation of institutions, and, while mistakes can happen, they are relatively easy to spot. And often data collection requires a collective effort involving a number of scholars (e.g. in estimating party positions with manifestos or conducting representative surveys of political attitudes) which makes fraud on such a scale is less likely. I hope not to be proven wrong too soon.<\/p>\n<p>For more info on the Stapel affair: an article in English is available <a href=\"http:\/\/news.sciencemag.org\/scienceinsider\/2011\/10\/report-dutch-lord-of-the-data-fo.html\" target=\"_blank\">here<\/a>,\u00a0 and \u00a0in Dutch <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nrc.nl\/nieuws\/2011\/10\/31\/commissie-wil-aangifte-tegen-frauderende-hoogleraar\/\" target=\"_blank\">here<\/a>. Hat tips to Patrick and Toon for providing info and links.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Academic \u00a0fraud is reaching new heights lows. Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel (Tilburg University)\u00a0 is the culprit this time. A commission looking into the issue came up with a report [in Dutch] on Monday saying that &#8220;the extent of fraud is very significant&#8221; (p.5). Stapel fabricated data for at least 30 papers published over a period of at least nine years (the investigation is still ongoing, the number can rise up to 150). Entire datasets supporting his hypotheses were made up from thin air. He also frequently gave fabricated data to colleagues and PhD students to analyze and co-author papers together. Diederik Stapel is was an eminent and &#8216;charismatic&#8217; scholar whose research made global news on more than one occasion. He has been awarded a Pioneer grant by the Dutch National Science \u00a0Foundation. He is the man behind all these sexy made-up findings: Power increases hypocrisy Sexy doesn&#8217;t always sell Messy surroundings promote stereotyping and discrimination (published in Science!) Meat-eaters \u00a0are anti-social What a painfully ironic turn of events for Stapel who also \u00a0published a paper on the way scientists react to a plagiarism scandal. The whole affair first came to light this August when three young colleagues of Stapel suspected \u00a0that something isn&#8217;t quite right and informed the University. What is especially worrisome is that on a number of previous occasions people have implicated Stapel in wrongdoing but their signals had not been followed. \u00a0In hindsight, it is easy to see that the data is just too good to&#8230;<\/p>\n<div class=\"more-link-wrapper\"><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=123\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Academic fraud reaching new heights<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[2,34,44],"tags":[50,52,55,160,180,591,609,610,645],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7g3hj-1Z","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":235,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=235","url_meta":{"origin":123,"position":0},"title":"Updates on academic fraud from across the globe","date":"January 16, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"The new year starts with some encouraging news! British medical scientists call for stronger action against academic fraud. \u00a0\"Dishonesty is common and institutionalized in medicine and medical research\", said one of the participants in the conference. Importantly, the scientists want to classify the non-publication of negative results as a serious\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Plagiarism and fraud&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":24,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=24","url_meta":{"origin":123,"position":1},"title":"The present and the future of academic publishing","date":"October 10, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Academic publishing remains one of the most mysterious industries to me even after being caught in its web for a while. I have found no better presentation of the idiocy of the whole system than this video: more here Unfortunately, recent development (at least in social science journals) do not\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Academic publishing&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/GMIY_4t-DR0\/0.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":83,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=83","url_meta":{"origin":123,"position":2},"title":"How to get more citations: red hot new evidence?","date":"October 19, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Wanna get more \u00a0citations to your papers? Start with the title. No colons, no question marks [evidence here \u00a0(gated); don't look here]. More \u00a0acronyms [link]. And don't even think about humorous and \u00a0amusing phrases [link]. Didn't help? Don't despair: \"no more than 20% of citations of prominent papers involve the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Academic publishing&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":455,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=455","url_meta":{"origin":123,"position":3},"title":"Review the reviews","date":"April 26, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"Frank H\u00e4ge alerts me to a new website which gives you the chance to\u00a0review the reviews\u00a0of your journal submissions: On this site academic social science researchers have the opportunity to comment on the reviews they have received, and the process of decision-making about reviews, affecting articles submitted for publication, book\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Academic publishing&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":186,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=186","url_meta":{"origin":123,"position":4},"title":"The best abstract ever","date":"December 1, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"The best abstract of an academic paper ever? Probably yes. [via Boing Boing] P.S.\u00a0Now that the\u00a0problem\u00a0of writing the perfect abstract is solved, you might wanna check\u00a0how to write the perfect title. \u00a0","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Academic publishing&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/bestabstract.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":531,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=531","url_meta":{"origin":123,"position":5},"title":"The hidden structure of (academic) organizations","date":"October 23, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"All organizations have a 'deep' hidden structure based on the social interactions among its members which might or might not coincide with the official formal one. University departments are no exception - if anything, the informal alliances, affinities, and allegiances within academic departments are only too visible and salient. Network\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Network analysis&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/social-network-bsk1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=123"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=123"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=123"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=123"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}