Academic Fraud Clearinghouse

[spork]

[. . . ]

I guess plagiarizing MDs are no smarter about it than your average plagiarizing undergrad! 

[. . . ]

I have learned through personal experience that a lot of MDs are rather dumb. At minimum, up to 50% are below average.

[bio-nonymous]

[. . . ]

I guess plagiarizing MDs are no smarter about it than your average plagiarizing undergrad! 

[. . . ]

I have learned through personal experience that a lot of MDs are rather dumb. At minimum, up to 50% are below average.

Major qualifications for getting an MD in USA = perseverance and fantastic memory (think MCAT as a gatekeeper and endless hours worked as intern/resident)--> creativity and genius are not required attributes...

[bio-nonymous]

ChatGPT written manuscripts--a recent list:
https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/!

[spork]

University of Rochester's investigative report on Ranga Dias is now public:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00976-y

[spork]

Norman "Ned" Sharpless, former head of NIH's National Cancer Institute and former interim head of the FDA, along with several other co-authors.
 

[dismalist]

Dan Ariely has published a book. The guy has testicular fortitude.

From Andrew Gelman's blog:

Misbelief

Gelman isn't accusing Ariely of cheating, just bad practice. Anybody interested in the gory details should click the link in the last sentence of the blog post.

 

[Puget]

Dan Ariely has published a book. The guy has testicular fortitude.

From Andrew Gelman's blog:

Misbelief

Gelman isn't accusing Ariely of cheating, just bad practice. Anybody interested in the gory details should click the link in the last sentence of the blog post.

 

Others have gone further in accusing him of cheating -- it is pretty clear that at least one study, if the data were collected at all, it could not have been in anything like the way the study was described. So even if it wasn't deliberate falsification, it was sloppy to the point that I don't think there's a meaningful difference, just like if you kill someone by acting with regress disregard for safety it's still a crime even if you didn't intend to kill them.

[dismalist]

Dan Ariely has published a book. The guy has testicular fortitude.

From Andrew Gelman's blog:

Misbelief

Gelman isn't accusing Ariely of cheating, just bad practice. Anybody interested in the gory details should click the link in the last sentence of the blog post.

 

Others have gone further in accusing him of cheating -- it is pretty clear that at least one study, if the data were collected at all, it could not have been in anything like the way the study was described. So even if it wasn't deliberate falsification, it was sloppy to the point that I don't think there's a meaningful difference, just like if you kill someone by acting with regress disregard for safety it's still a crime even if you didn't intend to kill them.

Gelman isn't accusing Ariely on cheating on his newest book. The guy is clearly a cheater. My favorite is the finding that signing you are truthful at the top of the page has a greater effect than signing at the bottom of the same page.

There's also a link in Gelman's post to the wonderful experiment with the doctored shredder. Never mind the experiment -- the shredder can't be replicated!

Testicular fortitude.

[fizzycist]

Ranga Dias, University of Rochester, physics

How in the world did he think he was going to get away with something like that?  He wasn't just p-hacking some obscure research in an obscure field here.  A claim such as this was bound to get thoroughly checked out.

My guess in cases like this is extreme delusion optimism about eventual positive results. Fudging data will not look so bad down the road if the fudged results are vindicated by later work. Of course, it's a huge gamble because if they're not, then you're completely discredited.

Only explanation I can think of too.
Maybe it happens like: he had a minority/fringe hypothesis and really wanted to prove it right and the haters wrong. He saw some hints of an effect, got super excited and then willed himself to see more within noisy/imperfect data. In a rush to take credit, he realized it wasn't nearly enough evidence and just started making shit up.

[spork]

Daniel Joseph Berdida, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, and editor for Journal of Nursing Management. Published three of his papers twice. Since he altered the title each time, it wasn't a mistake.

https://retractionwatch.com/2024/04/10/exclusive-wiley-journal-editor-under-investigation-for-duplicate-publications/

[marshwiggle]

Ranga Dias, University of Rochester, physics

How in the world did he think he was going to get away with something like that?  He wasn't just p-hacking some obscure research in an obscure field here.  A claim such as this was bound to get thoroughly checked out.

My guess in cases like this is extreme delusion optimism about eventual positive results. Fudging data will not look so bad down the road if the fudged results are vindicated by later work. Of course, it's a huge gamble because if they're not, then you're completely discredited.

Only explanation I can think of too.
Maybe it happens like: he had a minority/fringe hypothesis and really wanted to prove it right and the haters wrong. He saw some hints of an effect, got super excited and then willed himself to see more within noisy/imperfect data. In a rush to take credit, he realized it wasn't nearly enough evidence and just started making shit up.

I came pretty close to that as a grad student. I worked in a lab with several other grad students and postdocs. "Promising results" had been observed which I was supposed to try and confirm. I got a bit of a stink-eye for not doing so. Later-hired postdoc, (so not part of the "promising" crowd), confirmed my results and then started hunting down those earlier results. Turns out there were a couple of experiments done under non-reproducible conditions, and a third that had a comment in the notebook but no actual data.

Part of the reason I wasn't terribly motivated to go for a PhD.

[spork]

Francesca Gino (Harvard) now also accused of plagiarism:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/4/11/harvard-business-gino-plagarism-allegations/

[dismalist]

Hell, if Gino had stuck to plagiarism, she wouldn't have had to fake her data!

[spork]

Dipak Panigrahy, Harvard Medical School, submitted 500 pages of plagiarized word salad as expert testimony in a federal class action lawsuit. The judge rejected it.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/4/15/hms-professor-plagiarized-report/ 

[marshwiggle]

Dipak Panigrahy, Harvard Medical School, submitted 500 pages of plagiarized word salad as expert testimony in a federal class action lawsuit. The judge rejected it.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/4/15/hms-professor-plagiarized-report/ 

Well, there's your problem:

Panigraphy — who has been at BIDMC since 2013 and runs the Panigraphy Lab — is available for hire as part of the Expert Institute, a website which allows attorneys to find experts for their cases.

Hey, if you're gonna get paid to pretend to be an expert in court, you need to be able to produce bogus-but-professional sounding research reports quickly.