[yieldcrv]

There are other deterrents possible than this author’s vendetta has

Maybe civil charge to pay back the public funding, in the case of there being public funding. Turning researchers into debt serfs may reach better compliance and sustain access to their cognitive abilities on behalf of the public, as opposed to prison

[pvaldes]

Forcing the slabos (I created that word just because we needed one) for doing science for free in advance, and creating incentives to blackmail them to return the money later is the wet dream of any politician.

In the end there could be the undesired collateral effect of nobody wanting to do science anymore by the perceived risk. Only the very rich people could afford the lawfare

[yieldcrv]

Insurance mitigates

[pvaldes]

As somebody that was required to pay an extra of 700€ before to be allowed to read my thesis, in concept of "insurance" (that, surprise, surprise, the university never provided but still billed) I can tell you that this is not very realistic.

It just adds a new member in the table sucking researchers dry. Who will pay for this insurance?, the grants earned by this scientific? Then this is less money that goes to the researcher one year later. Those that hire researchers will need to either increase the funds or to allow some free hours in the contract so the researcher can double jobs working in McDonalds.

[janalsncm]

The principle of moral hazard suggests that paying for insurance makes people more likely to use it.

[yieldcrv]

we’re not going to call it research paper fraud insurance, just professional liability insurance

they are still going to gave the threat of a public records civil charge from the government

[janalsncm]

The average researcher probably makes under $6 million in their lifetime, before tax. That money is probably never being paid back unfortunately.

The threat of permanently withholding future funding is probably enough to curb casual fraud.