572. Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia? | Freakonomics Radio

[@HLBear]

I found it interesting that Francesca said the only way to clear her name is a lawsuit. Shouldn't she have opened up her data and study results instead? If the data is real, it should speak for itself. Crazy.

[@Suburp212]

The fear of the fraudster.

[@karagi101]

I’d sue if I felt I was libeled. My reputation and career may be on the line. It depends if it was a genuine belief she did not commit fraud or whether she was doing it to silence her critics. That would have to be adjudicated.

[@luck484]

The TV show "The Rifleman" had an episode with a similar plot. A reporter claimed a gunslinger was very skilled, with the intent of making him the man to beat if you wanted to make a living as a gunslinger. The reporter claimed to be completely surprised that each of the gunslingers died in a series of quick draw contests. Each player, gunslinger and reporter were acting in their own "perceived" self interest, attempting to enjoy being a celebrity.

[@johnrowland7739]

I hope they can counter sue for court costs.

[@bl00zjammer]

Yes, there must be repercussions for using the courts and a monetary threat to deal with disagreement rather than explaining your inconsistencies with logic and facts. It seems to me to be the path of a dishonest person. To get one last big "haul" before their careers (justifiably) implode. There should be zero tolerance for fraud and a life-time ban from publishing for those that are proven to have done it. Sorry, get a job at McDonalds and evaluate the burger to stroke risk ratio.

[@wolfumz]

The case was dismissed, largely because they never committed defamation. The judge found that Data Colada were making statements of opinion, and thus, they cannot be committing defamation. I dont think they pursued lawyers fees. Sometimes, its just better to take your win, and leave. Even if you win a judgement in court, you have to try and collect the money, and you have to pay a lawyer for that, too. If they don't want to pay, it can take years to get the money. The judgement is the half way point, not the end.

[@bobadams1696]

First, thank you for doing this story and bring this to the public’s attention. Second, I couldn’t help but think about how people justify their perspective, when you talked about Economic studies having less errors. You gave reasons, but in the end people are creating those studies and unless the incentives are vastly different there is a good chance errors/fraud is in that space as well.

[@bl00zjammer]

Of course, there is fraud everywhere. We are human. We suck. But, the fields are not the same and you should not casually dismiss the "reasons" given. Nothing ever is "... in the end." Incentives can be anything you want, but what makes the difference are the questions asked, the method and scope of data acquisition, the choice of statistical analysis, and I think, the data types. Is your question a numerical one or a descriptive one. Numerical data is easier to assess the validity of and to just understand and so is more likely for fraud to be noticed. Descriptive data such as how some thing makes a participant "feel" is less rigid and more prone to both skewing data, but just overlooking inconsistencies.

[@stephenboyington630]

My favorite thought on this would be to prove that flipping a coin always results in heads.

[@yzerman123]

I fear that academic research is becoming click-baity like the media, even if it's not factually accurate.

[@MNRAZORBACK]

I'm sorry, but the fact that Claudine Gay was allowed to resign as the president of Harvard really isn't a punishment. I mean, yeah, some people will notice it and it looks kind of bad, but she was not fired. They did not terminate her for cause.

[@docmacdvet]

If it is about fraud, then there really is no honor among thieves. But crime does not pay. But Lawsuits do.

[@luck484]

Crime does, in fact, pay. Otherwise people would not commit crimes.

[@Suburp212]

I would find Francesca believable, only IF she would never have sued at all. With that legal suit, she admitted her wrongdoing.

[@karagi101]

Why wouldn’t you sue if you believed you were libeled and your reputation and career were put in jeopardy? I would. It doesn’t indicate guilt. If she did it to just silence legitimate, non-libelous free speech then that’s a different matter. That would have to be adjudicated.

[@gabrielrodriguez821]

I completely agree fraud is rampant in these research circles however non replication should be expected as scientific studies are highly experiential and no where near being a viable theory without furher study.

[@CountJeffula]

I think you’re doing science wrong then or in a hand wavey field where P-values of 0.3 or less are acceptable. Move to the harder sciences and you’ll find more repeatability.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

"The first of a two-part series starts now," he says, four minutes and fifty seconds after he's started. Why?

[@rookooful]

You know i was rooting for max but then he straight up said he didn't want to take responsibility for the fraud and a lot of that died. The correct course of action when he was presented with the allegations and asked if he would have liked to have taken it it to harvard would have been to say yes. But the fact that he said no meant he wanted to wash his hands of the situation and claim innocence.

[@maxheadrom3088]

10,000 papers out of how many?

[@phandao5]

In pseudo sciences such as sociology or psychology, even when they didn't fake the data, the research topics are pointless and the analyses are childish.

[@edwoodsr]

One explanation of data fudging is that the researcher believes their hypothesis is correct (and societally positive) and that the data must therefor be incorrect. This would comport with a belief in post-modernist philosophy. Just sayin'

[@64standardtrickyness]

Thats terrible, we should have that guy that studies dishonesty study this phenomenon.

[@thespacecowboy420]

Because universities have been training sociopaths for 60+ years and all that matters is victory and not morality, where have you been?

[@karagi101]

I guess you never went to University, did you. 😂

[@MuneerAlrabadi-lq5oq]

So were I am from that happened to me and buter to say who not scam me in my data

[@maxheadrom3088]

What's "decision science"? Is it something like "economical science"? You know ... some sort of science in which experiments are impossible?

[@johnweiner]

So, I stopped the video at 10:45 to write this comment. The video is yet to BEGIN to answer the question headlined in the video blurb, "Why is There So Much Fraud in Academia?". So far it is just belaboring the obvious...there is a lot of cheating,... too bad...cheating not good, belaboring and belaboring. Please get to the point!

[@tfwall]

The 15-sec clip version is: Because humans are involved, both as subjects and as data collectors/processors.

[@karagi101]

Did you miss the part about the problem of reward structures?

[@drakekoefoed1642]

the vu meter thing is annoying. what's the point?

[@Jannl98]

Are you looking at the screen while listening?

[@bl00zjammer]

@@Jannl98 I close my eyes when I listen. Which is challenging when I am driving. But hopefully, when someone drives, they look at the road and not the podcast screen.

[@Techelettt]

Academics is as bankrupt as politics. Very sad that the system is so badly designed.

[@bl00zjammer]

Yes, publishing must begin real accountability measures. Trust lost is rarely, if ever, regained. Stupid humans and their greed! Greed is not useful "self-interest" either, social evolutionists!

[@dchappy6985]

Cough! Anthony Fauci

[@RyanHalverson-m9c]

I hope they can counter sue for court costs.