tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post5411257678317670166..comments2024-03-23T13:15:48.445-07:00Comments on Crystal Prison Zone: I tried to report scientific misconduct. How did it go?Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10825531253125205466noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-34751146805535273652022-05-17T03:56:09.519-07:002022-05-17T03:56:09.519-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Charles Xavierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01169729280518273277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-79493154146140604862021-07-03T21:38:57.552-07:002021-07-03T21:38:57.552-07:00The numbers should not be adjusted or altered. If ...The numbers should not be adjusted or altered. If not, the whole research study should be repeated and challenge by a different organization.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-28939702792194959512021-04-06T01:10:50.405-07:002021-04-06T01:10:50.405-07:00Ah yes, correct. I underestimated the effect of th...Ah yes, correct. I underestimated the effect of the standard deviation.<br /><br />I did not mean that when I typed my initial comment, but if one were extremely gracious, perhaps the mean and standard deviation are using continuous ages (i.e., a lot of people are around age 14.99, which count toward age group 14 but get counted as 14.99 for the mean and standard deviation). But overall, I agree that the numbers are very very likely just wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-11744111154942539142021-04-05T13:45:00.961-07:002021-04-05T13:45:00.961-07:00I think SPRITE does a good job searching the possi...I think SPRITE does a good job searching the possible distributions and feel pretty confident that there is no such distribution. <br /><br />If you try to work out such a distribution yourself, I think you will see that it is impossible. <br /><br />To get the mean all the way up to 15.76, you need a high mean in both the 10-14 participants and the 15-20 participants. Let's give every participant in each group the same age to reduce the variance within groups and keep this example simple. Every participant in the 10-14 group is exactly age 14. To achieve a mean of 15.76, then, participants in the 15-20 group must have a mean age of 17.53. If the two groups have mean ages of 14 and 17.53, then the SD of age in the total sample is already 1.77 -- well in excess of the reported SD of 1.18. <br /><br />Having any 10, 11, 12, 13 year-olds will require having more 18, 19, 20 year olds, further increasing the SD of age. I don't think it's possible, but I'd be interested to see such a distribution.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10825531253125205466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-44298435296190393122021-04-05T12:43:09.281-07:002021-04-05T12:43:09.281-07:00Overall great article.
Just one point: Regarding ...Overall great article.<br /><br />Just one point: Regarding "Other papers had means and SDs that were impossible given the range." I don't quite agree with this, or at least I think this point needs more convincing arguments. Not sure what SPRITE is doing, but I am sure that there are a lot of distributions with the given mean/standard deviation/constraints, even some that include children aged 10, 11, and so on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-37288205787285568252021-02-22T06:15:42.225-08:002021-02-22T06:15:42.225-08:00Thanks alot for this blogpost and thanks even more...Thanks alot for this blogpost and thanks even more for your hard work. Being a scientist means towards my opinion that you care about unreliable parts of what's often called 'the body of scientific knowledge'. Such parts need to be removed (= retracted) when it indeed turns out that there is preponderance of evidence that they are rotten. Its very hard work and only possible for people who are very tough. Please continu with you work and do not get disappointed when you get no response. <br /><br />I am working together with others to get retracted a fraudulent study on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler in a Taylor & Francis journal. Max Kasparek, the Editor-in-Chief of this journal, has not communicated with me since the beginning of May 2015. Publisher Taylor & Francis has blocked my e-mail account and told me to block all other e-mail accounts as well (This as a response on a formal request, round 2, on access to the raw research data). I fail to understand why Taylor & Francis is forcing me to use snailmail when communicating with them. <br /><br />The details of our efforts are listed in a preprint at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344770291 A slightly revised version is at the moment at journal #34. Some of the responses from editors of journals are listed in the preprint. Anyone any idea why Pippa Smart (mentioned in my preprint) does not communicate with me about her article at https://ese.arphahub.com/article/52201/ and anyone any idea why the Editor-in-Chief of this journal does not communicate with me as well? <br /><br />I won't go into the details of the outcome of the correspondence with others about our efforts to get retracted this fraudulent study and I won't speculate about the motives of the non-response of many parties on queries from my side.Klaas van Dijkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05507228199903986218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-63470531155541448142021-02-20T06:20:50.802-08:002021-02-20T06:20:50.802-08:00Hopefully something can be done since it is alread...Hopefully something can be done since it is already on Science! And have you by any chance checked out his new publications? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-70187377977837846652021-02-18T15:52:25.825-08:002021-02-18T15:52:25.825-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-45160263931910228182021-02-12T12:14:29.309-08:002021-02-12T12:14:29.309-08:00Now that you have started down this path, devote t...Now that you have started down this path, devote time securing the funding to found a institution dedicated to the promotion of integrity and transparency in scientific publication. D Wigglesworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06722406151927647765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-35485822336395402062021-02-03T00:48:18.923-08:002021-02-03T00:48:18.923-08:00Hello,Joe!
I checked my email again and found that...Hello,Joe!<br />I checked my email again and found that I didn't receive your reply. I think it may be due to network problems or other reasons. Sorry for wasting your time! I will send it to you again, thank you for your cooperation! Good luck!Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839848267132170518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-47269656953215484772021-02-03T00:32:38.498-08:002021-02-03T00:32:38.498-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839848267132170518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-30953808682580225432021-02-02T08:01:20.280-08:002021-02-02T08:01:20.280-08:00Hi Wang, I replied to your gmail account at Feb 2,...Hi Wang, I replied to your gmail account at Feb 2, 7 AM Beijing time.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10825531253125205466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-24393523678846209922021-02-02T02:30:22.373-08:002021-02-02T02:30:22.373-08:00Hello, Joe!
I have sent you an email yesterday and...Hello, Joe!<br />I have sent you an email yesterday and hope to have a brief interview with you on this issue. I am looking forward to your reply. thank you.Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839848267132170518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-36487613585413218042021-02-01T09:59:33.491-08:002021-02-01T09:59:33.491-08:00I had not considered this and it makes sense, than...I had not considered this and it makes sense, thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-86178969904187122082021-02-01T00:58:03.531-08:002021-02-01T00:58:03.531-08:00Hello, Joe!
I have sent you an email and hope to h...Hello, Joe!<br />I have sent you an email and hope to have a brief interview with you on this issue. I am looking forward to your reply. thank you.Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839848267132170518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-68523732368511361672021-02-01T00:31:29.540-08:002021-02-01T00:31:29.540-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839848267132170518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-22962060920672997762021-01-30T15:28:49.091-08:002021-01-30T15:28:49.091-08:00Though in fairness they did take action when this ...Though in fairness they did take action when this was brought to their attention!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17808962648377696932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-41343142449965402922021-01-29T07:44:41.466-08:002021-01-29T07:44:41.466-08:00Hi Unknown,
It is my impression that editors, ins...Hi Unknown,<br /><br />It is my impression that editors, institutions, committees, etc. all investigate only once, if ever. It seems to me that gradually dribbling out the evidence over a series of investigations might be less effective -- people will grow exasperated with you and start ignoring you rather than launching a fourth investigation. It also gives people more time to cover their tracks, for the data to be lost, for somebody to change institutions, or for somebody to stop replying to emails.<br /><br />In another case I've handled, the editor was very firm that the results of the first investigation were final and that he considered any further inquiries to be "harassment."<br /><br />For those reasons, I think it is best to put all the evidence in a single package. In this case, I wanted to make my best good-faith summary of all the evidence for misconduct. Southwest University's decision not to consider all the relevant interest would probably be the same regardless of my communication strategy.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10825531253125205466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-56515465273005896162021-01-29T07:30:49.091-08:002021-01-29T07:30:49.091-08:00Amazing article, but I recommend you to not send a...Amazing article, but I recommend you to not send all the observed problems in a single message? The way you did was really interesting, informative and respectful, but I feel like there's a technique that matches the energy (effort) of whoever replies and makes the degree of scientific misconduct much clearer.<br /><br />One point supporting that is that verbal communication (and a debate) is linear: Someone proclaims a contradiction, the attacked person responds, then that someone proclaims another (or attacks the response), then the attacked person responds, etc.<br /><br />When you send a message saying "There are 7 facts that contradict the paper and they are this and that", you are launching a single argument and in the perspective of the Chairman it translates to: "The paper is flawed because of this single, atomic problem I noticed in the data: blah blah blah"<br /><br />It might take much longer as each message will only address one problem, but by sending these problems one at a time and waiting a response it becomes clear that the paper does not have one "mistake", but it is entirely a mistake.<br /><br />There's also an additional pressure because after the fourth or fifth problem you communicate, the person is either tired of you saying the paper has flaws (with arguments that need time to deconstruct/make up lies), or he is forced to say "I don't care, just let me publish falsehood in peace!"<br /><br />Anyways, it might be too difficult to implement, just in case you ever come across terrible cases of scientific misconduct that you want to put a large effort into being retracted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-38493136895232155172021-01-28T13:31:02.348-08:002021-01-28T13:31:02.348-08:00I had complained to a few journals about scientifi...I had complained to a few journals about scientific miscounduct in peer review. A few articles were reviewed in the same laboratory from where they were submitted and it happened in front of me. However, none of a journal has taken any action.Tapan Kumar Mohantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06110253597359614664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-6132999988443511032021-01-28T11:52:20.798-08:002021-01-28T11:52:20.798-08:00Peer review is basically dead as a concept, and th...Peer review is basically dead as a concept, and there's a reason half of the population basically laughs when someone says "follow the science."<br /><br />Where? To the imgainary garbage heap it originated from?Jimmy Q.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15726493455514397606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-34252726380962022992021-01-28T11:19:34.262-08:002021-01-28T11:19:34.262-08:00No surprise. Even the big names: https://youtu.be/...No surprise. Even the big names: https://youtu.be/b-eTDKRB3VgXufang Baihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15697890714388012358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-42697775402888771072021-01-28T10:01:22.264-08:002021-01-28T10:01:22.264-08:00We need a revolutionary movement against the inert...We need a revolutionary movement against the inertia and disengagement of the editors and publishers.<br /><br />It's clear that many are simply mercenaries, with little regard for the integrity of the public resource that they claim to be stewards of.Tom Ameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07594221994697512387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-1981753325197851842021-01-28T07:10:05.917-08:002021-01-28T07:10:05.917-08:00Thank you for standing for your (our) principles. ...Thank you for standing for your (our) principles. Keep up the good work. Look out for preprints that cite Zhang's work - especially meta-analysis manuscripts. Perhaps you can stop the damage before it happens.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06942709957320735303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-56140380633783316882021-01-28T04:42:06.316-08:002021-01-28T04:42:06.316-08:00This is why I teach my students to not believe in ...This is why I teach my students to not believe in everything they read, just because it is a peer review journal. Thank you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388824076672334676noreply@blogger.com