Fraud in science

>>8999323
>So how common is fraud in science?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

>A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N=7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N=12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.

>>8999342
>>8999334
/mlpol/ pls go

why does /sci/ let /pol/ rape them?

good thread

>>8999323
Happens all the time, especially when moey is involved.

File: March-2012.jpg (17KB, 500x375px)

17KB, 500x375px

>>8999323
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

>>8999371
it doesn't, shitpost threads that actual /sci/entists and mathematicians don't even open don't count as rape. See the threads where technical discussion occurs, they're devoid of retards because they don't understand any of the material and have no buzzwords to grasp onto for a shitpost.

File: 1485017568091.jpg (39KB, 326x326px)

39KB, 326x326px

>>8999371
they don't
it's not /pol/ doing the shitposting, but rather /x/ making all the peusdoscience and flat earth wankery, some /qa/ remnants transparently falseflagging as /pol/ in their eternal quest to get it deleted, and /r9k/ for all the women hate threads as sour grapes is their anthem

/pol/ is dealing with far to many raiders, shitposters, and redditors to do much of anything right now

super common, especially in biology where reproduction of results is difficult, because no one gets funding to do reproduction studies.

Not to mention p-hacking, or simple things like leaving out all of the failures and only including your positive results.

>>8999396
I don't think they're fraudulent so much as just dumb. They seemed to think their gibberish papers were high quality.

>>8999323
P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING P-HACKING

File: anar.jpg (40KB, 475x475px)

40KB, 475x475px

>>8999323
In order to keep the quality of the thread I'd like to suggest pic related.
Literally a masterpiece

Manipulation or doctoring is almost impossible.

P-hacking is very possible, but won't necessarily hide any truth or mislead you in anyway. Let's say you do a study that shows a link between smoking and cancer, but the results are not quite statistically significant, P-hacking wouldn't really be harmful in this case, especially with a lot of other publications showing significance.

I've done some pretty heinous shit to get ahead, and so has pretty much everyone else in my field. It's like steroids in sports. You can complain all you want about how they're unfair, but you aren't going to be able to compete if you abstain completely.

>>8999323
The fact is, if you don't manipulate or fabricate data you will most likely not receive funding and not have an income in the academic field.
>Fabricate data
>Publish more papers
>Boost reputation and prestige
>Win more grants
>Fabricate more data
>etc etc

File: fiat.png (20KB, 510x355px)

20KB, 510x355px

>>9001227
"When a lot of the fake peer reviews first came up, one of the reasons the editors spotted them was that the reviewers responded on time," Wager told Ars. Reviewers almost always have to be chased, so "this was the red flag. And in a few cases, both the reviews would pop up within a few minutes of each other."

arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/

>>8999326
>N=7
>N=12
Less than useless

>>9001412
You know, you could actually click that link and read the study. It's open-access.

>>9001412
>>N
You're misinterpreting the N. This is a meta-analysis of multiple studies, and the N reflects the number of studies, not the sample size of the constituent studies. The aggregate sample size is much larger.

Don't be a lazy fuckwad, read the article before you post.

File: 1363744583053.jpg (9KB, 175x180px)

9KB, 175x180px

>>9001227
that is fucking infuriating

>>9001712
it's also not true

>>8999326
> 95%CI: 0.86–4.45
literally pointless
>95% CI: 9.91–19.72
>>9001706
>>9001689
>retards who do not understand statistics

>>9001779
>>retards who do not understand statistics
the fucking irony

you clearly don't understand meta analytical stats. seriously, you're embarrassing yourself