Kellogg Insight: Who Gets Blamed When a Group Project Goes Wrong?

Kellogg Insight: Who Gets Blamed When a Group Project Goes Wrong?. “New research into that question calls to mind the curious case of one much-maligned researcher. It began in 1986, when six researchers published a major paper in the journal Cell. Among the authors were a little-known assistant professor named Thereza Imanishi-Kari, who had devised the paper’s central experiment, and Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore. But soon after the paper was published, Imanishi-Kari was accused of falsifying her data.”

Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong (Vox)

Vox: Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong. “Julia Rohrer wants to create a radical new culture for social scientists. A personality psychologist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Rohrer is trying to get her peers to publicly, willingly admit it when they are wrong. To do this, she, along with some colleagues, started up something called the Loss of Confidence Project. It’s designed to be an academic safe space for researchers to declare for all to see that they no longer believe in the accuracy of one of their previous findings. “

Ars Technica: Information overload study we covered has been retracted

Ars Technica: Information overload study we covered has been retracted. “In 2017, we covered a study that suggested information overload may be responsible for the viral spread of faulty information. The study was based on a mix of modeling of artificial ‘agents’ that forwarded information to their peers, and real-world data obtained from Twitter. In attempting to follow up on their own work, the researchers who produced it discovered two problems: a software bug in their analysis pipeline, and a graph that was produced using invalid data.”

Science Magazine: What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’

Science Magazine: What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. “Nearly a decade ago, headlines highlighted a disturbing trend in science: The number of articles retracted by journals had increased 10-fold during the previous 10 years. Fraud accounted for some 60% of those retractions; one offender, anesthesiologist Joachim Boldt, had racked up almost 90 retractions after investigators concluded he had fabricated data and committed other ethical violations. Boldt may have even harmed patients by encouraging the adoption of an unproven surgical treatment. Science, it seemed, faced a mushrooming crisis. The alarming news came with some caveats. “

NPR: Story ‘The Man Who Spent $100K To Remove A Lie From Google’ Has Been Retracted

NPR: Story ‘The Man Who Spent $100K To Remove A Lie From Google’ Has Been Retracted. “NPR has retracted the story that was previously on this page because it did not meet our standards. ‘Fairness’ is one of our guiding principles, and to that end we have pledged to ‘make every effort to gather responses from those who are the subjects of criticism.’ In this instance, that did not happen.”

Wired: Retracting Bad Science Doesn’t Make It Disappear

Wired: Retracting Bad Science Doesn’t Make It Disappear. “Scientists form a giant altruistic community. There are turf considerations and funding to compete for, as in any other walk of life, but by and large, scientists are doing what they do because they’re motivated by the greater good, and collaboration is in their DNA. So when a paper is retracted, potentially jeopardizing everything that came after it, the scientific community goes into self-correction mode and pulls all the papers that, at one point or another, directly or indirectly, have made a reference to that work. Right? Until further notice? Not exactly.”