Comments on: Three more retractions for Diederik Stapel

By: C.K.

C.K. — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:06:41 +0000

“All authors ARE responsible for the paper they collectively publish. I do not buy into the scenario that each of Stapel’s coauthors was clinically gullible”

Perhaps an exception to this would be Stapel’s students ? They may have not received proper training or a proper education to fully grasp what was going on, and what their responsibilities (should they have any) were.

By: Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:03:58 +0000

No offence taken… because you’re not talking about my suggestion – see the original post:
“Maybe co-authors should ask to see the original data as a matter of course.”

I was just saying that yes, that would help prevent fraud. Which it would. I didn’t say it would be feasible (although it would be maybe an hour’s work, per author, per paper, in most cases, so yes it would.)

By: Tord

Tord — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:35:36 +0000

Apparently all the authors aren’t responsible otherwise there would be some sanction, note the byline in the retractions: “His co-author was unaware of his actions, and not in any way involved”. Maybe this is a problem that the journals could pretty simply do something about. If your name is on the paper as one of the authors and you were NOT involved in the fraud then it is up to you to prove it – change the burden of proof. At another level, how is that someone can claim authorship of a study when they don’t know what is going on?

By: Hans Brighter

Hans Brighter — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:14:05 +0000

“I think a culture in which all authors check the raw data would still prevent a lot of fraud. ”
Well, with that logic, a culture in which each author collects their own data and actually replicates the study before publication would be even better! No offense, but, NS, obviously you don’t have a real academic job as you don’t seem to have a realistic view on the time academics have to publish at the rate that is expected of them by institutions.

By: Skeptical Scalpel

Skeptical Scalpel — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:11:50 +0000

I agree with chirality. In addition to the obvious fact that one who authors a paper has to answer for what’s in it, most journals ask that all authors sign a form attesting that they have read and agree with what has been submitted. Most also require that each author’s contribution to the work be specified.

By: chirality

chirality — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:45:34 +0000

All authors ARE responsible for the paper they collectively publish. I do not buy into the scenario that each of Stapel’s coauthors was clinically gullible. But this scenario limits the damage, so let’s pretend it is actually true.

By: Tord

Tord — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:32:14 +0000

Why not just make all authors responsible for the paper instead of just one as a matter of course? Could that provide a check in the system? I can’t help feeling that some co-authors who are at least negligent wrt to their involvement in fraudulent studies and at worst complicit, get off scot-free.

By: Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:09:30 +0000

While it’s true that a fraudster could just fake the raw data, I think a culture in which all authors check the raw data would still prevent a lot of fraud. For example, the raw data is likely to contain a set of dates on which the data was collected. If 5 coauthors, who all know the data collector personally, were to browse over those dates, they might well spot things that don’t make sense – a data point collected on a day when everyone was away at a conference, or when one of the coauthors was in a meeting with the guy.

That kind of thing. It’s a lot easier to fool a stranger than to fool your friends.

By: jbashir

jbashir — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:51:39 +0000

He had to publish it. The idea of him having some secret method that is above scrutiny is ridiculous.

By: Skeptical Scalpel

Skeptical Scalpel — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:14:00 +0000

I agree with the comment by Jon Beckmann. The Simonsohn paper can be used as a handbook for fabricating data.