Professor FIRED for lying in study about lying

Her plagiarism/fraud was uncovered some time ago…

"lol"

Oh, dear.

“We’re going to go after all of the institutions I was too stupid to get into!”

It's unfortunate that this is happening with a Harvard professor right now.

It feeds the wave of anti-intellectualism sweeping the country and fed by cheeto. It adds another nail in the coffin of distrust for research and academic studies.

As much as I dislike Harvard, it's traditionally upheld as the gold standard for academics and research authority on most topics from economics to science to medicine. We're going to have crackpots from third rate universities producing studies which link austism to vaccines and all sorts of other fake science.

Fuck you, r4.

A gold standard, not the gold standard.

Not American, but don't you guys have peer review of scientific papers before their publication? Why wasn't it picked up there, and publication denied, instead of by a shadowy watchdog?

R7 that’s a very excellent question. Here those of us in America that care about research have had to identify individual journals on their policies. it’s really very granular like researcher by researcher in university by university department.. there’s a very good organization that is based in England and Wales called cope. That’s what responsible American researchers use as a guideline. We’ve also formed a coalition, and we even go on Twitter as science sleuths. We are not scared of any platform and we are not scared of any pseudoscience BS. we’ve also made coalitions on blue sky.

Who has the time to peer review in a way that would get microscopically into data?

You'd be surprised how many people found time after the Thalidomide scandal. I guess RFK Jr thinks that was a conspiracy.

[quote] Not American, but don't you guys have peer review of scientific papers before their publication? Why wasn't it picked up there, and publication denied, instead of by a shadowy watchdog?

What do you know about the group that detected this fraud that caused you to call it shadowy. I don’t think any doubts about the organisation’s integrity have bern publicised so it would be useful to know the private information you have.

What countries are you think of and what review processes do you have in mind? I know there have been multiple examples of fraudulent academic publications in Europe for example.

I don't know it's shadowy. It's probably doing good work.

I'm just saying normally you send your paper to well qualified peers who endorse it before publication. This is like having an outside watchdog swoop in and disprove a PhD dissertation after the university-appointed independent examiners have approved it.

Ironically, the great catastrophe of Thalidomide is an excellent example of U.S. medical research at its best. The children of Europe suffered greatly, American children much less so. Due to the thoughtful work of an American (-Canadian) doctor.

^R10

[Quote] It feeds the wave of anti-intellectualism sweeping the country

It feels less like a “wave” and more like an ocean

Oddly enough, this story (which has been well-known for some time) illustrates how important stable funding is for scientific research. Researchers are often feel pressured to produce specific results to keep working. It's not surprising that someone might be tempted to alter data.

It was social science not medical science. FWIW

Lying cunt researchers of lying and rule-breaking get cancer.

By the way she was big paid over 1 million a year, the 5th highest paid professor at the school. What the hell was she doing to deserved that $$$$. Harvard is still paying lying spineless grifter ex-president Claudine Gay as a tenured professor.

R18 Rosie in exile

R7 because peer review supports mediocrity and the average is exactly this bullshit. None of Einstein's papers passed peer review.

R16 quite lame redirect.

In defense of the OP, I actually did “lol” seeing this one in the news. Seemed borderline Onion.

She fudged her data because 1) her work sucked and she couldn't improve it honestly and 2) she's a cynical greedy bitch, probably a sociopath, who does what it takes to get what she feels she deserves, despite being a shit scholar.

"Gino denied the allegations and filed a $25 million lawsuit against Harvard, Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar and the Data Colada bloggers. In court, she alleged defamation, gender discrimination and invasion of privacy. She also claimed the accusations irreparably damaged her reputation and career." Gino offered two explanations for the signs of data tampering: either that this was an honest mistake by her or her research assistants, or that "someone who had access to her computer, online data-storage account, and/or data files" tampered with her data out of malice, naming one of her coauthors in one of the since-retracted papers as the most likely suspect.

In the spirit of a true scammer.

This is a result of a 2 year investigation. She was put on leave in June 2023.

The moral of the story is - they had someone cheating, they caught them, and they paid a punishment - unlike Wall Street and others. Academia is not immune from people who put career over truth.

However, what's good is that there are procedures in place and the scientific method to identify these frauds - and they usually do get caught eventually.

I'm just surprised it took so long when others were trying to replicate her results. End of story - her career and reputation is RUINED forever. She will be unemployable for years. She may go into private sector, but even that is going to be difficult.

Lied. Detected. Punished. Career over. As it should be.

I am convinced that a significant portion of social scientists and economists fudge there data. To confirm the hypotheses they go in with.

In that, R24, she is not alone.

R26 - bullshit - what makes you convinced of that? There's peer review and replication done all the time.

You put any study out at risk of your reputation and your career - every academic knows this.

But for 'studies' that are funded by private companies and funds - I will agree with you there. It's about providing a study to prove a political stance - most of those are debunked, but they don't care because they were able to use it in a political cycle for votes.

No career or industry is immune to sociopaths and climbers who will do anything for money or prestige. But the problem with this was the grad student who wasn't allowed to publish her critique of this professor's study. Now THAT is bullshit and those profs should be penalized.

I was molested by a professor at Johnson & Wales.

See, fuck the Ivy League.

I trust ye old public universities, like Berkeley, before anyone in Cambridge.

He went to grad school in poor East Cambridge —he gets it.

He got an honorary degree from the other school in town that isn’t Lesley, R31.

That’s on them, not him.

Many schools, like Berkeley, don’t grant honorary degrees as a matter of principle.

What's striking is that,, even with falsified data, her findings were so trivial and contrived, like the conclusion that networking makes people feel dirty. Another fraudulent researcher found that signing a statement at the top of the page encouraged greater honesty.

This video does not age well. "Francesca Gino - Rebel Talent: Why It Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life"

A friend did graduate school at Università di Bologna and says everyone cheats openly, non stop.