I think that people who write stuff like this don't understand that other humans (besides themselves) have other motives besides career advancement. How out of touch do you have to be to not know other people are thinking of things besides their career prospects?

I disagree that it is a 'career strategy' at all. People are just science-ing. If you go into plumbing you can just plumb; you don't have to 'career.' But in science the culture may be one of careerism but not all humans connect with that. Some people like to just do good work.

No, they're not random. The true replicability of the median marketing study is currently unknown. But it's not a good sign that only 5 studies have so far successfully replicated.

Some of my favorite books I've read recently:
- Becoming Trader Joe
- Nimitz at War
I like biographies. I can hardly get through a whole book that doesn't have a good story.

The flow of replications has really been cut off. Only one was posted in 2024 and zero in 2023. I'm not going to speculate as to why (but please feel free to speculate or comment if you know!).

Marketing journals are openly in conflict with the COPE standards they agreed to because they don't allow anonymous fraud reports. Too bad there are no enforcement mechanisms. Anybody can sign it then just not abide by it I guess.

Ioannidis had his 'Why most published research findings are false' paper out in 2005 which overlaps with the 12-year period between publication and retraction of Wakefield's MMR-autism study. journals.plos.org/plosmedicine...

This is just speculation because I wasn't in science back then, but I wonder if there were spillover effects from medical research. Andrew Wakefield had his infamous MMR-Autism article retracted in 2010. Wakefield was more of a saga (still ongoing) than an event. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...

Engber posted a gift link that is not paywalled: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...

The less you mention scientific misconduct in the policy, the better. It should be focused on errors, questions about data provenance, conflicts of interest, plagiarism (whether intentional or not), etc. It should not hinge on a reading of the author's mind to see if their intentions were pure.

One thing I hate about marketing journals is they expect people to prove scientific misconduct, which means showing evidence of motive, before they'll consider a retraction. Ridiculous! If the paper is fatally flawed, just retract it. Who cares about the author's motives?

Second, when we say "as predicted" what we really mean is I just thought this up on the fly to explain some noise in my data. How do people not know this?

First of all, let's talk about this idea that people are faking up their data. Well, who hasn't fudged a few numbers here or there. It's not like anybody's reading this stuff anyway.

Part 3: Falsified Data and Error in Andrew Wakefield's 1998 (Retracted) Vaccine-Autism Study www.awayclinic.com/post/falsifi...

Part 3: Falsified Data and Error in Andrew Wakefield's 1998 (Retracted) Vaccine-Autism Study www.awayclinic.com/post/falsifi...