How much research is fraudulent?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Jack Hays, Jul 11, 2021.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The phrase is simply a polite form of assenting without agreeing.
     
    RoccoR and FreshAir like this.
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This looks like a pretty big bust.
    Einstein duo faked data in 16 federal grant applications: ORI
    [​IMG]
    Hui (Herb) Bin Sun

    A pair of researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York faked data in 50 figures in 16 NIH grant applications for six years starting in 2013, according to new findings from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

    According to the ORI, Daniel Leong, a former lab tech at Einstein,

    intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated Western blot and histological image data for chronic deep tissue conditions including osteoarthritis (OA) and tendinopathy in murine models by reusing image data, with or without manipulating them to conceal their similarities, and falsely relabeling them as data representing different experiments in fifty (50) figures included in sixteen (16) PHS grant applications. In the absence of reliable image data, the figures, quantitative data in associated graphs purportedly derived from those images, statistical analyses, and related text also are false.

    Continue reading
     
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A mother lode of fraudulent research:
    Will the real Tim Chen please stand up? A trip down the rabbit hole of deceit
    [​IMG]
    Marianne Alunno-Bruscia

    When Marianne Alunno-Bruscia, the research integrity officer at France’s national oceanographic science institute, uncovered nearly a dozen papers with fraudulent authorship, she thought she’d stumbled on something bizarre.

    She didn’t know how right she was.

    As we reported in early February, the problems arose during an audit the research activities of the L’Institut Français de Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer (iFREMER), which the organization was conducting to satisfy a request from the French High Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education – a bureaucratic headache, to be sure, but one which in this case proved well worthwhile.

    The bibliographic deep-dive turned up two curious articles bearing the name of Bertrand Chapron. That part wasn’t unusual. Chapron, a wave researcher, is prolific. Odd was the nature of the two papers. Neither was in Chapron’s fields of interest. Chapron disavowed any involvement in the work, and insisted that he’d never met the two main authors of the articles: Tim Chen and C.Y.J. Chen.

    Continue reading
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Those who do the right thing deserve our praise.
    Doing the right thing: Neuroscientist announces retractions in ‘the most difficult tweet ever’
    [​IMG]
    Myriam Sander

    A group of neuroscientists in Germany and Hungary is calling for the retraction of two of their recent papers after discovering a fatal error in the research.

    Myriam Sander, a memory researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, took to social media on Wednesday to alert her followers to the decision. In what Sander called the “most difficult tweet ever,” she wrote:

    Continue reading
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is one more case that demonstrates how hard it would be to corrupt the majority of scientists from around the world who are working in areas related to climate.
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do not claim they are corrupt.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2022
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Three strikes and you're out.
    UPenn prof retracts three papers for ‘substantive questions’
    [​IMG]
    William Armstead

    A pharmacology researcher at the University of Pennsylvania is up to four retractions for problems with the data in his articles after a neurology journal pulled three papers late last month.

    According to the Journal of Neurotrauma, a Mary Ann Liebert title, William Armstead – who holds a research professorship in Anesthesiology and Critical Care at Penn – requested the retraction of three articles while informing that, in his words:

    substantive questions have arisen regarding the findings, presentation and conclusions reported in the paper that could not be answered with available source data.

    But beyond that, Armstead – who has not responded to a request for comment from Retraction Watch – left things a bit of a mystery.
    Continue reading
     
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again, you provide ZERO EVIDENCE of fraud.
     
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is right there in front of you.

    First of all, where was the "peer review"? If it was something that was serious, why was this not caught before it was published?

    And if the available data does not answer the conclusions, then of course the conclusions are fraudulent.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  10. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How much research is fraudulent ?

    ~ Too damn much ! That has become blatantly obvious to anyone who does a bit of their own "fact checking " . :neutral:'
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, you provide ZERO evidence of fraud.

    Do you even know what fraud is?
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't believe you can support that.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Peer review does not and CAN not eliminate all errors. It is one step of many. Others include efforts such as duplication by unrelated teams using the same or different data, approaching the question using different methodology, etc.

    Was the problem "serious"? It was serious enough for the author to retract the paper. But, in terms of that field of science, there aren't many studies that change the course of science in that area based on such a limited number of papers. So, in those terms I don't see any indication that it was that kind of serious.

    As to your last sentence, that's not true. First of all, fraud requires there to be intent.

    But, the main issue is that a vast amount of the science today is working on answers to incredibly difficult questions. Whether the data gathered supports or falsifies an hypothesis is FAR from easy to answer.

    Being incorrect is NOT FRAUD. It is being incorrect.

    To be fraud, you have to demonstrate INTENT. Retracting a paper before anyone else has discovered an issue with the paper is clear indication of the ABSENCE of intent - thus NOT fraud.
     
  14. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

    Yes. For example, refusing to claim all of your liabilities when applying for a loan is fraud. Refusing to inform the purchaser of defects and deficiencies in a car or house is fraud.

    And making claims that are not supported in the report is also fraud.

    Oh, and he only requested the retraction when somebody finally bothered to actually go over his work, and started to ask questions about his findings.

    The very fact that he refused to respond to their questions tells me that he got caught, and was trying to figure a way out of it. The fact that they requested corrections or more information three different times with no response to me is quite telling. He then requested an additional two articles, likely because he knew those were just as bogus as the ones they had already caught.

    And this is not his first case of this. In 2017 he had a retraction as a Doctoral Student with Christian Kreipke, who was banned from getting government grants because of his fraudulent papers.

    Fraud is a big problem in research, because of the money involved. And any falsification is fraud, no way about it. If it was just a mistake, then I am sure Dr. Armstead would have answered any of the three times the publication asked for clarification. And not retracted one but three papers in total. Because just like Christian Kreipke, he knew that they would start to go over his other papers to see if it was a one time thing or a pattern of fraud and misconduct.

    Dr. Armstead worked with Dr. Kreipke. And as many know, Dr. Krepike now works in a Ford plant installing tires and other parts onto new cars. And if those other papers had been discovered by others he would likely end up doing the same thing when it was over.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, you have ZERO evidence of fraud.

    His acts are very clearly logical, as he certainly would have needed time to figure out if his papers held up to the particular criticisms.

    Obviously, retracting more than just the one being questioned is clear evidence of his dedication to the truth.
     
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We shall see. There is a record.

    ". . . Armstead’s earlier retraction was in 2017, of a 2013 article in Neurological Research that he wrote with Christian Kreipke while the two were at Wayne State University in Detroit. As readers may recall, Kreipke in 2018 received a five-year funding ban from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity for falsification of data and other misconduct – punishment he had spent years fighting in court. . . . "
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If data were falsified, that absolutely would count as fraud, obviously.
     
  18. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well I'LLC toss this one into the mix

    Yet Another Anti-Conservative Study Was Fake News
    Virtually all social-science hypotheses that attempt to find dark psychological reasons for conservatism haven’t held up at all under peer review.

    Yet another major study claiming conservatism is caused by mental problems has been conclusively proven to be junk science.

    The now-debunked study suggested conservatism is associated with conspiratorial thinking and “negativity bias.” But it proved impossible to replicate when tested by other researchers.

    “We find no consistent evidence that negativity bias promotes right-wing ideology; promotes ‘closed’ values or personality traits, such as need for closure or (low) openness to experience; or interacts with political engagement,” researchers doing the debunking wrote in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature. “To support these null results, we conduct a series of data quality and robustness checks that suggest our data is comparable in quality to that of previous work and our results do not hinge on particular operationalizations or modeling choices. Indeed, our results are consistent with several recent studies that fail to replicate associations between physiological indicators of threat sensitivity and political ideology.

    Perhaps nothing confirms that the root of the crisis in science is government control as much as watching people with doctorates make mistakes that should be obvious to a freshman. The critical error of endlessly privileging hypotheses that coincide with progressive political preferences has become sadly common.

    This isn’t the first time researchers have made exactly this mistake. In 2020, a major study in Science, another major peer-reviewed journal, that claimed conservatives were more likely to respond aggressively to stimuli couldn’t be replicated by independent researchers in a larger-scale study.

    More from
    ANDREW FOLLETT

    Kamala Harris’s Latest Mistake: Giving Russia and China More Control over Space
    Biden Brings Identity Politics to the Moon
    Russia’s Desperate (Yet Plausible) Threat to Crash the International Space Station
    “We conducted a preregistered replication in which we used the original threatening images used by Oxley et al. and a very closely related measure of ideology. With roughly four times as many participants in our lab, we found no evidence that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat compared to liberals. To conclude, we find no evidence for the original claim published in Science,” Bert Bakker, a professor at the University of Amsterdam who conducted the new research, told PsyPost...
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/yet-another-anti-conservative-study-was-fake-news/

    And the article goes on to note other studies including those of the researchers themselves admitting they slant data and the conclusion that believing the "peer reviewed studies" is no better than flipping a coin as ideologies have so contaminated true scientific research at the academic levels.
     
    Mushroom, Ddyad and Jack Hays like this.
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a remarkable episode.
    Journal about ‘ambient intelligence’ retracts more than 50 papers at once
    [​IMG]

    Perhaps the Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing needs to look for a different kind of smarts.

    The journal – a Springer Nature title – has just retracted 51 papers. The episode is the latest in a string of high-volume retractions by major publishers of papers included in special issues. In at least five cases, editors have claimed that their peer review processes were scammed by what some have called rogue editors.

    All of the Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing retractions begin this way:

    Continue reading
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  20. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12,421
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many of these science reporting issues have you run into:
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
    Mushroom, Ddyad and Jack Hays like this.
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a website I have bookmarked.
     
    Ddyad and Space_Time like this.
  22. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All the damned time!

    Most of my posting traditionally has been in military matters. And there, I see it all the freaking time.

    Some major news agency calling a armored personnel carrier a "tank". A Destroyer a "Battleship", an amphibious transport a "Carrier".

    More and more, news agencies are getting stupid. And in turn, that is making the viewers more stupid.

    Just last week at work we listened to the news about a report the "Great Salt Lake" is "dying". One of my co-workers said we had to do something about it, and I shrugged. Telling her "That has been happing for over 15,000 years. There is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it from dying".

    And the funny thing is, she got mad at me! But as typical, she simply believes she was told everything she needs to know, and that something can and must be done.
     
    Ddyad, Jack Hays and Space_Time like this.
  23. RoanokeIllinois

    RoanokeIllinois Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2022
    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How reliable are Democrat statistics?

    How reliable are Democrat Polls?

    well considering that they intentionally cheat, and twist their information.

    They do this, to try and get people to think, that if something is a fact, and they can get people to believe anything and all of their fake information, then they can continue to print more and more lies.

    They do it on polls, because they figure it will help them win if they cheat, and lie and manipulate the odds. People thinking, owe, well this democrat is going to beat this republican anyways, so what is the point in voting? or i might as well vote for the winning side democrats, if they're going to win anyways.

    However, it doesn't work on most logical and rational people.
     
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tsk tsk.
    Science retracts coral reef recovery paper more than a year after a report on allegations in its own pages
    [​IMG]
    Danielle Dixson

    Fifteen months after its news division published an investigation into work on coral reef recovery, Science has retracted a 2014 paper on the subject.

    The article, “Chemically mediated behavior of recruiting corals and fishes: A tipping point that may limit reef recovery,” was written by a group at Georgia Institute of Technology led by Danielle Dixson, then a postdoc at the university. Science issued an expression of concern in February of this year, as we reported then.

    According to the retraction notice, signed by Science editor in chief Holden Thorp, the University of Delaware, Lewes, where Dixson has been running her own lab, “no longer [has] confidence in the validity of the data”:

    Continue reading
     
  25. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To be honest, I reject things like that almost automatically without any kind of consideration.

    And to be fair, I also do the exact same thing when it comes to "Republican Statistics" and "Republican Polls".

    This is a science area, and I am only interested in science. The raw facts, the raw data. If somebody thinks that some political slant needs to be placed on the information, then it is no longer science. It is personal beliefs that are masquerading as science.

    And that is why so damned often in these threads, I tell people over and over again to vette their sources. A great many only look for sources that verify their claims, and not actual neutral sources. They do not want to know what is accurate, they only want to know what verifies their beliefs. And the sheer amount of junk science I see in here often makes my head spin. Especially when they use as "references" some claim by Elron Musk, David Avocado Wolfe, or Matt Ferrell. Or any one of the hundreds of other junk science content creators out there.

    Makes me want to hack into their computers, and limit them to only watching Thunderfoot and Computer Clan for an indefinite period of time. As I am sure they probably are trying to cool their house with Blaux AC units, are plugging EcoTune into their cars to get 50% more fuel mileage, and use a Moruz Zero vacuum clothes drier as they are waiting for the first car with a massless battery.
     

Share This Page