Archive for fake data

fake application

Posted in Books, University life with tags , , , , on August 2, 2021 by xi'an

A while ago, I was part of a hiring committee for a university abroad and among the applications we found one that was so blatantly fake as to wonder what was the purpose of the person (persons?) behind it. From a massive vita including all rewards in the field, incl. a COPSS presidential award, to publications in all top journals and conferences, with the applicant name added to the list of real authors, to fake affiliations, to a completely fake Google Scholar page, &tc. I was surprised at the possibility to include papers on one’s Scholar profile without appearing among the authors but this is apparently possible. And I wonder at the attempt itself since the application is screaming “fake”! A very weird form of performance art?! After searching a wee bit more, I found that some of my French colleagues had opened a webpage to warn about the activities of this individual (?). Including plagiarised papers or books still for sale on Amazon.

the mind of a con man

Posted in University life with tags , , , , , , , on May 21, 2013 by xi'an

“The tone of his talks, he said, was “Let’s not talk about the plumbing, the nuts and bolts — that’s for plumbers, for statisticians.””

As I got a tablet last week and immediately subscribed to the New York Times, I started reading papers from recent editions and got to this long article of April 26, by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee on Diederik Stapel, the Dutch professor of psychology who used fake data in dozens of papers and PhD theses.

“In his early years of research — when he supposedly collected real experimental data — Stapel wrote papers laying out complicated and messy relationships between multiple variables. He soon realized that journal editors preferred simplicity.”

This article is rather puzzling in its presentation of the facts. While Stapel acknowledges making up the data that conveniently supported his theses, the journalist’s analysis is fairly ambivalent, for instance considering that faking data is a “lesser threat to the integrity of science than the massaging of data and selective reporting of experiments”. At the beginning of the article, Stapel is shown going back to places where his experiments were supposed to have taken place, but he “could not find a location that matched the conditions described in his experiment”, making it sound as if he had forgotten…

“Science is of course about discovery, about digging to discover the truth. But it is also communication, persuasion, marketing (…) People are on the road with their talk. With the same talk. It’s like a circus (…) They give a talk in Berlin, two days later they give the same talk in Amsterdam, then they go to London. They are traveling salesmen selling their story.”

The above quote from Stapel is even more puzzling, as if giving the same talk in different places is an unacceptable academic behaviour, in par with faking data and plagiarism… I do give the same talk in several conferences and seminars, mostly to different people and I do not see a problem with this. If I persist in this behaviour, it will get boring to people who see the same talk over and over, and it should lead to me not being invited to conferences or seminars any longer, but there is nothing unethical or a-scientific in this. Another illustration of the ambivalence of both the character and the article. I frankly dislike this approach to fraud, a kind of “50 shades of lies”, where all academics get under suspicion that one way or another they also acted un-ethically and in their own interest rather than towards the advancement of Science…

%d bloggers like this: