[mitchellst]

Agreed. I don't think the snark helps.

Not my field, but my understanding of how these things work in big medical research factories: first few authors tend to be young researchers (maybe med students or even undergrads) trying to match residency or get into grad school. They do much of the work actually assembling the submission. The later names on the author list (who this article is taking to task) run labs or oversee research groups. Should they correct the record when it's pointed out? Yes. (But the snark and tenor of the post doesn't exactly convince someone they can admit an oversight in good faith.)

Should they be vigilant enough to check and notice these things? Of course. Some of the fakes are not subtle. Others, like the copy-paste of empty space in the lane to cover some undesirable result? Way harder to spot with the naked eye. I don't think there was great automated tech to detect image duplication in the 00's when these were published.

So your med student fudges data on a paper. The ethical answer is to expel them—"the world needs plenty of bartenders." But it appears big institutions these days are pretty invested in the sunk costs of prestige, dislike admitting error in admission or hiring, and prioritize go-along-get-along environments. It could be career limiting if students don't get any/enough pubs working in your lab. It'd a lot of hearings and paperwork to report him, plus I heard his uncle's a donor. If she got kicked out she'd lose her visa. And if I reported them, I'd be obliged to report everyone, and I'd be sunk in discipline hearings three times a year. So much easier to just... not look very hard.

It's bad science and bad ethics, but if you want better, reform the incentives. "Public" shaming by a niche newsletter... might be better than nothing, but doesn't qualify as an incentive.

[wrs]

They won't correct the record because they "can't admit an oversight" due to the snark in a niche newsletter...a newsletter which you then say isn't important enough to serve as an incentive? So which is it, important or not?

I would think they can't admit an oversight due to the institutional incentives you mention; the snark is irrelevant. If anything, it encourages publicity for the oversight, which is the only thing that might change the incentive.

[mitchellst]

Different things. The snark plays to individual psychology in the moment. When someone comes at you in a way that's demeaning and clearly states that they think you shouldn't have the position you have, that's a bad way to start a conversation where you're supposed to admit error. More likely, you avoid them.

To the real brass tacks incentives: yeah, it's "someone is angry on the internet" vs, "I will have to deal with a discipline process with documentation and meetings and maybe depositions and adversarial lawyers. That's not my bag, I'm a scientist. There will be volatile young people and bad feelings communicated in person, plus gossip among my close coworkers. Also undesirable. If this becomes a repeated pattern, learners might start avoiding my lab, and deans/my superiors might start asking very awkward questions." Yeah, stacked against that, angry person on the internet is a weak incentive. Even if they're right.

And the snark does matter. Because this guy writes like a YouTube comments section, and that's not how you talk to adults or solve problems in elite institutions. So the contrast in styles draws lines of "us" vs "them." And it's natural to care more about the opinions and esteem of your in-group (who talk like you) than the out-group (who deride you).

[boxed]

I think the snark comes from having screamed about the situation for years and years and no one listening.

Let's all remember what we are talking about here: every single one of us will know someone who will die several years early because of scientific fraud. It is reasonable to be angry as hell.

[eviks]

> Because this guy writes like a YouTube comments section, and that's not how you talk to adults or solve problems in elite institutions

Indeed, we've seen how the polite approach is so hard to ignore/avoid that the adults in elite institutions solve problems before snarky folks wake up!

[wrs]

There’s no individual psychology at play here. It’s not a conversation between peers. This person is already in the out-group by bringing this subject up at all. They have no institutional power. It’s not as if they just have to act like an adult and file some paperwork to get this fixed. They need to make a lot of noise to embarrass people who do have power into asking those awkward questions. Being tweetable (X-able?) also makes it more likely those volatile young people will hear about it before they join the lab.

[theGnuMe]

I mean there is an alternative to expel and that is rehabilitation. I think that happens in a lot of cases. These though are systematic repeated..

The first author 'undergrads' or 'med students' are not assembling the paper no way. For sure the last authors know what is going on.

[rscho]

In medical research no, last authors usually know little about what's going on. There are entire departments where the head puts his/her name on everything that comes out. We're talking tens of papers a year...