Extremely funny, but lying in research has become a HUGE deal. It is happening more and more and is skewing research.

It is getting to the point that you can't rely on research and flawed research also affects other research that uses the faulty data.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/know-harvard-professor-francesca-gino-tenure-revoked-data-fraud-invest-rcna209219

Quote:

---

For the first time in roughly 80 years, Harvard University has revoked the tenure of one of its professors.

The university revoked the tenure of Harvard Business School professor Francesca Gino, widely known for researching honesty and ethical behavior, a university spokesperson confirmed Monday.

...

Gino was placed on administrative leave in 2023 after multiple allegations of falsifying data surfaced. She has long maintained that she did not commit academic fraud.

...

The Crimson reported that in 2018 and 2019, Gino was the university's fifth-highest-paid employee, at more than $1 million in compensation per year.

Some of her most prominent studies have been centered on dishonesty.

...

A team of behavioral professors and researchers affiliated with the blog site Data Colada began examining several studies co-authored by Gino in 2021, "because we had concerns that they contained fraudulent data," the site said.

The site alleged that the data in a study Gino co-authored had been fabricated, which the researchers denied.

---

It's probably been decades since we should trust any research by college professors. They're apologists for leftism and all about that government dollar.

This has always been happening and it's getting worse

will25u said:

---

Extremely funny, but lying in research has become a HUGE deal. It is happening more and more and is skewing research.

It is getting to the point that you can't rely on research and flawed research also affects other research that uses the faulty data.

Quote:

---

The Crimson reported that in 2018 and 2019, Gino was the university's fifth-highest-paid employee, at more than $1 million in compensation per year.

---

---

How much of it was our tax payer money siphoned off into her bank account under the guise of a "research grant".

Was anyone else hoping this was about famed American Indian Elizabeth Warren?

The humanities disciplines are already chock full of junk science. I guess they figure what's wrong with a bit more?

Fired for falsifying data and lying about research on honesty & ethics. The irony is almost too much

Damn. You beat me to it.

If Harvard isn't more careful one of these days they might have to fire a school President for long term plagiarism.

Faking results and "lying" in research has always been a big deal. Most universities have a strict policy of revoking tenure for this behavior (among other things). You are warned when tenure is granted. FYI tenure is not a "get of jail free" card.

agent-maroon said:

---

Fired for falsifying data and lying about research on honesty & ethics. The irony is almost too much

---

...and there are people who fully "trust the science" when it comes to climate studies.

A leftist lied. Water is wet.

It would be more shocking if she told the truth.

Quote:

---

It is getting to the point that you can't rely on research

---

Actually it's easier now, more than ever, to catch falsified research data. Data Colada, who essentially proved the fraud, did so primarily through computer data analysis.

Gino actually sued Harvard and Data Colada. She even accused Harvard of violating title IX, but the judge laughed it off

I can't really imagine going home each night, as one of the preeminent researchers in honesty and ethical behaviors, knowing that I lied and faked much of my research. The hypocrisy is off the charts, and clearly she cares nothing about the field in which she works.

Fireman said:

---

I can't really imagine going home each night, as one of the preeminent researchers in honesty and ethical behaviors, knowing that I lied and faked much of my research. The hypocrisy is off the charts, and clearly she cares nothing about the field in which she works.

---

Tell a lie enough and you start to believe it.

" It is getting to the point that you can't rely on research and flawed research also affects other research that uses the faulty data."

I think this statement needs looking at. In the college of science, it's essentially pointless to falsify the data, because you can guarantee someone will check your work/experiment and point out your mistakes.

This lady is NOT in a scientific field. It's humanities. There is no such thing as "math doesn't lie" in humanities. There is no 100% right or wrong. It's a field filled with opinions and suppositions. And if we're being honest, who really cares about this mumbo jumbo anyways?

Good. I can't fathom ever falsifying my work.

aggiedent said:

---

" It is getting to the point that you can't rely on research and flawed research also affects other research that uses the faulty data."

I think this statement needs looking at. In the college of science, it's essentially pointless to falsify the data, because you can guarantee someone will check your work/experiment and point out your mistakes.

This lady is NOT in a scientific field. It's humanities. There is no such thing as "math doesn't lie" in humanities. There is no 100% right or wrong. It's a field filled with opinions and suppositions. And if we're being honest, who really cares about this mumbo jumbo anyways?

---

There's all kinds of falsified data in science research. P-hacking is the softest form, but there are researchers who straight make up data to get results. Adding extra observations to pull significance up, deleting observations that are pulling significance down, blatantly changing the reported results in the paper.

Sure, the errors may be caught, but unless you publish the source data it will be years and still has a strong likelihood of never being outright proven. Journals usually require ironclad proof to retract a paper, so even if the community rejects the findings the paper still counts as a pub until it's retracted.

I've never read this lady's work, but it sounds like she was outed because of the hard math she faked. Qualitative research, which isn't real research to begin with, couldn't be reverse engineered because there isn't data or methods.

Harvard should be consigned to the trash heap of history!

and I have a Certificate Degree from Harvard!

ts5641 said:

---

It's probably been decades since we should trust any research by college professors. They're apologists for leftism and all about that government dollar.

---

See my user name...

Fireman said:

---

I can't really imagine going home each night, as one of the preeminent researchers in honesty and ethical behaviors, knowing that I lied and faked much of my research. The hypocrisy is off the charts, and clearly she cares nothing about the field in which she works.

---

She probably got off on knowing she was banking a $million+ every year enjoying her status while fooling the unwashed masses beneath her. The evil take pleasure in doing this sort of thing.

agent-maroon said:

---

Fireman said:

---

I can't really imagine going home each night, as one of the preeminent researchers in honesty and ethical behaviors, knowing that I lied and faked much of my research. The hypocrisy is off the charts, and clearly she cares nothing about the field in which she works.

---

She probably got off on knowing she was banking a $million+ every year enjoying her status while fooling the unwashed masses beneath her. The evil take pleasure in doing this sort of thing.

---

I'm sure they were "peer reviewed", right?

Liberals are pathological liars. So they actually believe the lies they create. And they are so unhinged,mentally off, that they will argue with you when you have actual proof they are wrong right in front of their eyes.

Gotta do away with low hanging fruit since they are about to take a huge loss in revenue.

One major issue with "AI" is the input material. Imagine how things will become corrupted as bad data/input is fed in.

On the other hand, using AI to rip through research to find anomalies may result in the revocation of PHDs. Esp when work is stolen from other countries in a foreign language. The ability to vet work for basic cheating would be very interesting.

Science Denier said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

Fireman said:

---

I can't really imagine going home each night, as one of the preeminent researchers in honesty and ethical behaviors, knowing that I lied and faked much of my research. The hypocrisy is off the charts, and clearly she cares nothing about the field in which she works.

---

She probably got off on knowing she was banking a $million+ every year enjoying her status while fooling the unwashed masses beneath her. The evil take pleasure in doing this sort of thing.

---

I'm sure they were "peer reviewed", right?

---

No....

.... Pee-er reviewed.

How in the blue hell do you "research" honesty and/or ethics? And what benefit to society would that research bring?

Seems like junk science on its face, regardless of the quality of researcher.

Quote:

---

For the first time in roughly 80 years, Harvard University has revoked the tenure of one of its professors.

---

This right here, is the problem.

Story time.

When I was a med student I was looking for a new space to study so I tried the law library. Struck up a conversation with a law student and discovered our medical ethics lecturer was one of her law profs. When I asked if he taught her legal ethics course as well, she became visibly indignant and replied, "This is the law school. We don't teach ethics, we define them."

And thus ended the awkward pick-up attempt...

agent-maroon said:

---

Story time.

When I was a med student I was looking for a new space to study so I tried the law library. Struck up a conversation with a law student and discovered our medical ethics lecturer was one of her law profs. When I asked if he taught her legal ethics course as well, she became visibly indignant and replied, "This is the law school. We don't teach ethics, we define them."

And thus ended the awkward pick-up attempt...

---

" {/Unzip} Well, would you define this as ethical!?"

It shouldn't be that complicated.

"Look a new discovery"

Ok can this be replicated?

"No"

Ok it isn't a new discovery...

deddog said:

---

Quote:

---

For the first time in roughly 80 years, Harvard University has revoked the tenure of one of its professors.

---

This right here, is the problem.

---

Another problem....and not just at Harvard:

Prompt to Grok:
"What percentage of major research papers have results that have then been duplicated by other studies?"

Response:
"Estimating the percentage of major research papers with results successfully duplicated by other studies is tricky, as it varies across fields and depends on how "duplication" is defined (e.g., exact replication vs. conceptual replication). Studies on reproducibility suggest a range, but no universal figure exists.


In fields like psychology, a 2015 study in Science (Open Science Collaboration) attempted to replicate 100 studies and found about 36% produced statistically significant results consistent with the originals, though effect sizes were often smaller. In biomedicine, a 2016 Nature survey indicated that around 50-60% of researchers struggled to reproduce published results, suggesting a similar or lower replication rate. Hard sciences like physics tend to fare better due to stricter methodologies, but comprehensive data is scarce.

A rough estimate, based on meta-analyses and surveys (e.g., Ioannidis, 2005; PLoS Medicine), suggests 30-50% of major papers in social and biomedical sciences have results that hold up under replication, with higher rates in physical sciences. Factors like publication bias, p-hacking, and small sample sizes lower these rates.

Without more specific field or study criteria, I can't pin down a precise number. If you want, I can dig deeper into a particular discipline or check for recent posts on X discussing replication trends."


Probing further.....

Prompt to Grok:
"So what percentage of studies are estimated to have never had their results even attempted to be duplicated?"

Response:
"Estimating the percentage of studies that have never had their results attempted to be duplicated is challenging due to limited systematic data and variations across disciplines. No comprehensive global study tracks this precisely, but some insights can be drawn from available research and scholarly discussions.


Replication studies are relatively rare because they are resource-intensive, less likely to be published, and often undervalued in academia compared to novel research. A 2018 analysis in Nature suggested that only a small fractionestimated at 10-20%of published studies in fields like psychology, biomedicine, and social sciences are ever selected for replication attempts. This implies that 80-90% of studies in these fields may never have their results formally tested for replication. In physical sciences, where replication is sometimes embedded in iterative experiments, the rate of attempted duplication might be slightly higher, but still, a majority likely go untested.

A key factor is the sheer volume of published papers (millions annually) versus the low number of replication studies. For example, a 2021 PLOS ONE study estimated that less than 3% of published psychology papers are explicit replication attempts. If we extrapolate, the vast majority of studiespotentially 80-90% across fieldsmay never face duplication efforts, especially in niche or low-impact areas.

Without more granular data, a rough estimate is that 80-90% of studies, particularly in social and biomedical sciences, have never had their results attempted to be duplicated. If you want me to narrow this down to a specific field or check for recent discussions on X about replication rates, let me know."


So......only about 20% of studies are even attempted to have results duplicated. And half fail that test.

I think it would shock some how ideologically driven even some of the hard sciences have become.

Peer review has become a litmus test for ideologically driven rubber stamping.