[uuidgen]

Did YOU even check what you cite?

The AUTHORS of the original paper got a dataset from a company. They didn't assume the fraud from the start and published the paper based on it.

Later, when they tried to analyze the issue more in-depth, they couldn't replicate the results. THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS PUBLISHED a paper about a failure to replicate. It was just then that someone looked at the original data and found that it was faked.

[smitty1e]

Divison of Labour[1] is powerful. The need is to incentivise feedback loops to QA the data on the front end.

The fear of reputational implosion is apparently insufficient.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour

[feikname]

> Did YOU even check what you cite?

I did completely read what was available to me without having an account.

> The AUTHORS of the original paper got a dataset from a company. They didn't assume the fraud from the start and published the paper based on it.

My comment is not about who the culprit is or isn't. Indeed, I don't mention anything about it.

Rather, it's about how, as the title says, a WIDELY cited paper has fabricated data following rather (IMO) obvious red flag patterns and none of the people -who cited the paper- raised issues about that.

Thus, I questioned whether scientists read or not the papers they cite in the parent post. The question is not a judgment, I'm just truly curious since I'm not part of the formal academia, just an undergraduate.

[bobcostas55]

It's seems highly likely that Ariely did it, not the company.

[fighterpilot]

Why do you say that?

[bobcostas55]

He created the excel file. If he wanted to clear his name he could publish the original data as it was sent from the company, but he hasn't done so. And the company obviously has no incentive to falsify the data.