[Noumenon72]

> if the rate of fraudulent labs is even as high as 10% you should expect that any viewpoint that it’s widespread would be drowned out by views that it’s not real.

If "it" is fraud here I would expect the viewpoint that it's widespread to be less and less drowned out as it approached 10% since everyone would know that it's real. I think I'm misunderstanding the sentence.

[renewiltord]

No, the guys at fraudulent labs and the guys at honest labs will both claim no fraud. The only ones who will claim fraud are those who cross over. So you’ll get a vast majority telling you it’s not happening and a tiny minority (even when as high as 10% are fraud) telling you the fact. All rare things have this effect. There will be so many people telling you it’s not real “as someone in the field”. They will be adamant about it. You need someone who has seen both.

To be clear, not “as it approaches 10%”. I mean “even as high as 10%”.

[titzer]

Not I didn't say that it isn't real, I just said it's not that rampant, and I was referring to the egregious examples in the article and the anecdote. But it's a sliding scale and being selective in presenting research results is a gray area that requires us to think about reproducibility and make sure we have good processes for discouraging, detecting, and correcting those kinds of dishonesty, too.

In my field (programming languages and compilers), conferences have started to adopt artifact submissions which include source and build instructions that are then independently replicated by volunteers who serve on artifact evaluation committees. It's a good step in the right direction.

And I'll also caution, again, that reasoning based on anecdotes can be distorted both ways. A tiny minority of people can claim the sky is falling and make it sound like Science is threatened by crisis. Those voices get amplified by the media and the attention economy and get blown out of proportion. What Science and institutions need is mechanisms that are fair and well-resourced and taken seriously. Those mechanisms and the people who volunteer time and effort to keep them running are the real heroes of Science, and breathless articles and anonymous anecdotes on the internet do not make up an accountability system.

If you see fraud, then REPORT IT to someone who can actually hold them accountable. Unsubstantiated and undirected accusations just spread distrust and do not increase accountability.

[qsera]

>And I'll also caution, again, that reasoning based on anecdotes can be distorted both ways...

I will go further and say that if you can clearly see how the incentives are aligned, even anecdotes are not necessary.

>If you see fraud, then REPORT IT to someone who can actually hold them accountable. Unsubstantiated and undirected accusations just spread distrust and do not increase accountability.

Mmmm..are you..for real? I mentioned incentives just above, so let us look at it. What is the incentive of this "person who can hold them accountable"? Do they really want to cut down the "output" of the institution by insisting on 100% honest? Do they really want to lose to competition which might allow such practices?

I think not. I think if this is reported, chances that the report will sit in some shelves or end up in some dust bin doing nothing. And the person who report it would suffer one way or the other.

Also: https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2003-ashforth.pdf

>What Science and institutions need is mechanisms...

Na, "Science" and "Scientists" needs funding. End of story.