This all reminds me of the detective-story gimmick where a crime is committed by a pair of identical twins. The idea is that even if there's clear evidence that one of the twins did it, it's impossible to prove which one did it, and so neither can be convicted of the crime.
I think that in a cute high profile case like that, bad cops / DAs would lean on them, say that either they were both going to jail unless they could give up the other guy as the perpetrator. Claim that they were both involved, try to prove some version of collusion, and then slap them both with the stiffest obstruction charges that could be justified.
We have, of course, the exact opposite of this situation - where we have no power, no ability to coerce, no statutory authority, and so on. We should not have some of those things, of course, because they're bad. And, of course, university is prosecuting 'its own' - more like a prosecution of a *bent* cop.
How would you avoid discouraging reporting of fraud by a co-author, as in the Pruitt cases? It is already hard to ask a junior researcher to investigate and ultimately retract their own paper. If this also opened them to penalties it sure wouldn't make things easier.
One could say that all of Pruitt's co-authors should have scrutinized his data much more suspiciously, and this is true. But one can also say that people will fail to do this from time to time, and under your scheme, if they catch this failure later they are disincentivized (assuming there are penalties beyondretraction) from speaking up about it.
You hint that maybe there are no penalties beyond retraction. I don't know that I could stomach that in cases like, say Didier, where lives were literally at stake. I'm not sure I could stomach it in general. It's an awfully serious crime, research fraud.
I don't know how much discouraged people would have to be. They're already presumably very discouraged, because report rates like that are very low. I think the truth is: we already think like this to some degree.
I think you are completely correct in the FULL COURT PRESS of decission making. If you can't show me the data underlying the conclusions, the you need to be HANGED by it.
James:
This all reminds me of the detective-story gimmick where a crime is committed by a pair of identical twins. The idea is that even if there's clear evidence that one of the twins did it, it's impossible to prove which one did it, and so neither can be convicted of the crime.
If only cops worked like that.
I think that in a cute high profile case like that, bad cops / DAs would lean on them, say that either they were both going to jail unless they could give up the other guy as the perpetrator. Claim that they were both involved, try to prove some version of collusion, and then slap them both with the stiffest obstruction charges that could be justified.
We have, of course, the exact opposite of this situation - where we have no power, no ability to coerce, no statutory authority, and so on. We should not have some of those things, of course, because they're bad. And, of course, university is prosecuting 'its own' - more like a prosecution of a *bent* cop.
How would you avoid discouraging reporting of fraud by a co-author, as in the Pruitt cases? It is already hard to ask a junior researcher to investigate and ultimately retract their own paper. If this also opened them to penalties it sure wouldn't make things easier.
One could say that all of Pruitt's co-authors should have scrutinized his data much more suspiciously, and this is true. But one can also say that people will fail to do this from time to time, and under your scheme, if they catch this failure later they are disincentivized (assuming there are penalties beyondretraction) from speaking up about it.
You hint that maybe there are no penalties beyond retraction. I don't know that I could stomach that in cases like, say Didier, where lives were literally at stake. I'm not sure I could stomach it in general. It's an awfully serious crime, research fraud.
I don't know how much discouraged people would have to be. They're already presumably very discouraged, because report rates like that are very low. I think the truth is: we already think like this to some degree.
This isn't simple.
Hi James,
Oliver here, that curmudgeon from Germany.
I think you are completely correct in the FULL COURT PRESS of decission making. If you can't show me the data underlying the conclusions, the you need to be HANGED by it.
No buts, ifs or other excuses!
That Ariely "investigations" is a travesity!
Macchiarini whistleblowers were found guilty by being coauthors.
https://forbetterscience.com/2018/06/25/karolinska-decides-on-macchiarini-and-jungebluth-papers/
Why would anyone blow the whistle then?