tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post9162596474906227568..comments2024-03-28T04:15:44.459-05:00Comments on nanoscale views: Physics intuition and a follow-upDouglas Natelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-3956351553912143812011-03-30T01:11:02.604-05:002011-03-30T01:11:02.604-05:00The apparent spike in fraud in recent years may be...The apparent spike in fraud in recent years may be a bit of an artifact of small numbers.Mychael Margotthttp://www.bmcassociates.com/articles/news_iw19980914.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-27486301576225926802007-05-02T00:18:00.000-05:002007-05-02T00:18:00.000-05:00IP - point taken. In this case, I meant fraud a l...IP - point taken. In this case, I meant fraud a la Schoen.Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-15357192350443576632007-05-01T17:33:00.000-05:002007-05-01T17:33:00.000-05:00I think it depends on how one defines "fraud", if...I think it depends on how one defines "fraud", if it's fraud a-la Schoen, where data is made up, then I agree, it is quite rare.<BR/><BR/>However, the instances where data is real but "massaged" - for example by ignoring datasets that do not agree with certain effect as "junk data", and focusing on "good data" that supports your hypothesis, not explaining certain key aspects of experimental setup that will cast doubt on your conclusions, or even plain overstatement of the consequence/importance of the work being described, then I would say it's a lot more widespread than we think.NONEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10714684038171784902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-66762953851303939672007-04-30T22:40:00.000-05:002007-04-30T22:40:00.000-05:00This is potentially a significant problem.The appa...This is potentially a significant problem.<BR/><BR/>The apparent spike in fraud in recent years may be a bit of an artifact of small numbers. Rare events can seem clustered. Also, in some aspects of this particular case, with digital tools available now, it is easier to detect suspicious circumstances. I do not think that fraud is widespread.Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-82207650527655697312007-04-30T13:33:00.000-05:002007-04-30T13:33:00.000-05:00I vaguely remember you mentioning something about ...I vaguely remember you mentioning something about this in lab. I can't remember any of the specifics, though. Is this "suspicious" work as high profile as the Schon work (i.e. is it as potentially damaging to as many research groups)?<BR/><BR/>I hope, for the sake of science, that we do not have another case of scientific fraud on our hands; there have been way too many (in many different fields) in the last few years! What do you think, is this spike in fraud an aberration or some sort of statement on the science community in general?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06547583432269961633noreply@blogger.com