>>2334 brainlet tier, here is the archive version of the article if you can't access it: https://web.archive.org/web/20230712180055/https://fortune.com/2023/07/12/harvard-business-school-francesca-gino-retractions-fabricated-data-dishonesty/

>>2335 Still fucked up, here is the article: A fake data scandal is rocking the world of behavioral science after a star Harvard professor—and an expert on dishonesty—was accused of manipulating data. Last week, Psychological Sciences, an academic journal, withdrew two papers from Francesca Gino, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, at the university’s request, reports the Financial Times. The retractions are the first confirmation that the university is taking seriously the allegations against Gino that were first raised last month. The papers retracted by Psychological Science—“Evil Genius? How Dishonesty Can Lead to Greater Creativity” and “The Moral Virtue of Authenticity: How Inauthenticity Produces Feelings of Immorality and Impurity,” from 2014 and 2015 respectively—were the subject of a takedown last month by Data Colada, a blog that analyzes the reliability of data in the social sciences.

>>2336 The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is also retracting another Gino-authored study accused of fraud by Data Colada, reports the Financial Times. Fraud accusations against Gino were first raised in mid-June, when the Chronicle of Higher Education first reported that one of the Harvard professor’s studies—which had already been retracted due to concerns about its data—had broader flaws than previously reported. Data Colada later revealed that they raised concerns about Gino’s work to Harvard Business School as early as fall 2021. The blog suggested at the time that more dubious papers may be out there. “Perhaps dozens,” wrote the blog’s authors: Joseph Simmons from the University of Pennsylvania; Uri Simonsohn from the Esade Business School and Leif Nelson from the University of California at Berkeley. Gino has been on administrative leave from Harvard Business School since June 15 at the latest, according to archived versions of the school’s website. The Harvard Business Review website published work by Gino as late as May 25. Neither Harvard Business School nor Gino immediately responded to Fortune’s request for comment. “I am limited [in] what I can say publicly,” Gino wrote in a LinkedIn post last month, yet said she took the allegations “seriously.” Gino’s lawyers said the professor “viewed the retraction as necessary,” yet disagreed with the accusation that there were discrepancies between the published and original data, “stating that ‘there is no original data available’, according to the retraction notice from Psychological Sciences.

>>2337 Gino was a celebrated expert in workplace dynamics, leadership and honesty in the growing field of behavioral science. Her most recent book, published in 2018, was titled Rebel Talent: Why it Pays to Break the Rules in Work and Life. The Harvard professor was widely cited by her fellow researchers and by the media. Gino was a scholar with “so many collaborators, so many articles, who is really a leading scholar in the field,” Maurice Schweitzer, a behavioral economist at the Wharton School and one of her many co-authors, told the New York Times after the allegations against Gino were first raised. Yet there were already rumblings of data issues with Gino’s work as early as 2021. A 2012 study, co-authored by Gino, was retracted based on manipulated data. The Harvard professor was not responsible for the experiment in question, and she wrote at the time that she started “all my research collaborations from a place of trust,” and hoped ”that all of my co-authors provide data collected with proper care and due diligence, and that they are presented with accuracy,” according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. More recent allegations now highlight issues with that 2012 paper that implicate Gino. As many as 148 researchers have co-authored papers with Gino, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. “To the best of our knowledge, none of Gino’s co-authors carried out or assisted with the data collection for the studies in this series,” wrote Data Colada’s authors in their commentary on Gino’s work.

>>2338 The fake data is another knock against the work of behavioral scientists, who investigate whether small changes in design or the environment can alter a person’s behavior. Often this research claims that small “nudges” can help people work more effectively, productively, or ethically. Yet further studies show the effects of these nudges may not be as large as claimed. Scientists have worried about a “replication crisis,” as researchers fail to get the same results as high-profile studies. One 2015 effort to replicate 100 psychology papers was only able to reproduce the results from 39 of them. Academics blame the pressure to publish a lot of revolutionary papers quickly for the rise in low-quality research, as well as the lack of prestige from—and funding for—testing someone else’s work.

>>2334 https://web.archive.org/web/20230629192354mp_/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4716

>>2334 https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088-1.html

>>2334 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqU_JMTzd4

>>2334 Hard sciences have a peer problem. Scientists are more likely to agree with their peers than to investigate impartially. Soft sciences are fields like Social studies, where humanities fags changed the meaning of science, so these fields could be included as sciences and get respect. Fact is, these fields are methodically biased and used to amplify whatever opinions governments and academics want to amplify. These studies are used to justify funding and investments via index's , rankings, reports etc. Almost no one bothers checking the methodologies or data collection. Soft sciences need a proper reset and recheck, free'd from European assumptions.

>>2335 here https://archive.is/yd60r

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822 Related to OP's post.

>>2360 Psychology’s replication crisis has sparked many debates about whether public discussions about replication failures and questionable research practices will cause people to lose trust in psychological science. We examined whether informing people about three major aspects of the replication crisis (i.e., replication failures, criticisms of questionable research practices, and reforms) affects how much people trust psychological research, distinguishing trust in past research from trust in future research.

https://www.experimental-history.com/p/an-invitation-to-a-secret-society This reflects my own feelings on the current state of sciences and what we need to do about it >>2334 Why this pic OP ?

>>2389 To thirst trap people into replying.

Will later add some organized thoughts on this topic.

https://yewtu.be/iMSkIupYBy4 Germany has some world class experts, who get paid basic ass salaries and have to fight for extension of their contracts. It is no wonder then, that these experts betray their countries and sell proprietary research to other countries. China still doesn't produce much of its own research in most fields. Its not for lack of capability, CCP is not able to retain their own talent.

It is to give you options. A worker can only do work that his body can take. His options are limited by his body. Smarter people can learn skills and take on multiple roles, they have more options. This is the original purpose of education. The more of the world you understand, the more options you have with regards to your position in the world.

>>2443 Don't get me wrong. Chinese deserve all the credit for investing in their workforce and in buying experts.

>>2443 If you want to earn money, learn practical fields. Electrician Plumber Mechanical crane operator Lifter etc See where you can add value > I did engineering OK. What can you do practically ? The response of 999/1000 candidates is nothing.

This is a lie. You have to define your own path. Going on a set path will only bring disappointment.

>>2446 "p-p-papaji nehi manege, izzat >>> practicality" >>2447 sell DMT, not weed

>>2656 Funny thing is, this is EXACTLY what happened to me I wanted to go the tradie/polytechnic route and get a 4year degree in Electrical Engineering or some other stuff I would've gotten practical knowledge on various trades + a job by now but entire family (esp. an unkil) went "noooo muh family honor" and here I am, studycelling for some sovlles meme Uni degree where I'll just download and plagarize stuff from online (I have seen 40yo boomers who wanted their resume to look better submit plagarized papers and get meme titles, BD academia is rotten beyond belief)

>>2659 >>2659 Pass your exams and do what you want. The coming few years will be wild, there will be lot more use for people with more practical skills. On a long term basis, freedom of options and flexibility matter a lot more than money. I was lucky. Family had no "izzat" so to speak. So they trusted my judgement.

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2023/08/scientific-productivity-by-country/ India spends a lot, but has very low quality research in return.

More fraud: https://youtu.be/2mWwXO_guHk >>2683 Interesting, impressed India is coming in third. >>2659 Personal development is infinitely more important than a degree.

>>2688 Sadly no. High number yes. But very low quality. In research, quality matters a lot.

>>7162 In academia there is a unwritten rule. You only get judged for your positive contributions, not your negative ones. Including review of existing research. This is why, academia is less critical of itself and tolerates lying parasites. Add to this the fact that govts fund research that furthers their agenda, this makes parasite researchers much more valuable than genuine ones.