Can Academic Fraud Be Stopped? (Update)

2025/1/2

Freakonomics Radio

AI Deep Dive AI Insights AI Chapters Transcript

People

Brian Nosek

诺斯克是开放科学和可复制性研究的领先人物，通过开放科学中心和其他倡议推动科学研究的透明度和完整性。

Ivan Oransky

Joe Simmons

Leif Nelson

Max Bazerman

Simine Vazire

Stephen Dubner

以《怪诞经济学》系列著名的美国作家、记者和广播电视人物。

Uri Simonsohn

Topics

Stephen Dubner: 本期节目探讨了学术界普遍存在的学术不端行为，以及一些改革者为解决这一问题所做的努力。学术不端行为的形式多种多样，从数据造假到发表在虚假期刊上，都对学术界的声誉和公众的信任造成了损害。 Max Bazerman: 学术不端行为的部分原因是人们对成功的渴望和不切实际的野心。许多被指控学术造假的学者都研究过道德行为，这本身就是一个耐人寻味的现象。对学术造假者动机的了解有限，但可以肯定的是，成功的压力和不健康的激励机制是重要因素。 Ivan Oransky: 学术不端行为的发生率远高于公开承认的水平。大学往往会保护学术造假者，而他们通常不会受到严厉的惩罚。“论文工厂”的存在使得购买论文或作者身份成为可能，一些期刊甚至被恶意方劫持。开放获取出版商也容易受到“论文工厂”的攻击。 Brian Nosek: 学术界需要提高透明度，这需要多方面努力，包括简化数据共享流程、使其成为规范以及调整激励机制。完全阻止学术造假是不可能的，但可以提高造假的难度，例如通过预注册研究项目。 Uri Simonsohn: Data Colada团队创建了一个平台，以提高研究的透明度。学术界的激励机制是问题的一部分，但并非全部问题。 Simine Vazire: 期刊的激励机制复杂且存在冲突。期刊编辑在同行评审过程中应该隐藏作者姓名，以避免潜在的偏见。 Leif Nelson: Data Colada团队成员的角色类似于内部事务部门，但他们更倾向于将自己视为记者而非警察。这项工作带来了巨大的压力和负担。 Joe Simmons: 许多社会科学研究的基础是错误的，这需要对激励机制进行彻底的改革，并让那些重视细节和数据完整性的研究人员掌握权力。

Deep Dive

Key Insights

What is the estimated percentage of academic papers that should be retracted due to fraud or severe mistakes?

Approximately 2% of academic papers should be retracted due to fraud or severe mistakes, according to data from Retraction Watch.

Why do universities often protect academic fraudsters?

Universities protect fraudsters by being slow to investigate, keeping investigations hidden, and advising against disclosing misconduct in reference letters, often due to legal concerns.

What is the role of paper mills in academic fraud?

Paper mills allow researchers to buy authorship on papers or entire papers, which can then be submitted to journals, often without the knowledge of other co-authors.

What is the Open Science Framework and how does it combat fraud?

The Open Science Framework is a platform where researchers pre-register their projects and hypotheses before collecting data, increasing transparency and making fraud more inconvenient.

What is the registered report model in academic publishing?

The registered report model involves journals reviewing and committing to publish a study based on its methodology and importance before the results are known, reducing bias towards positive findings.

What are the challenges faced by peer reviewers in academic publishing?

Peer reviewers face challenges due to the sheer volume of papers, lack of access to raw data, and the unpaid nature of their work, leading to lighter reviews and more errors slipping through.

What is the Lifecycle Journal initiative by the Center for Open Science?

The Lifecycle Journal initiative aims to reimagine scholarly publishing by allowing continuous evaluation and updating of research throughout its lifecycle, moving away from the constraints of traditional paper-based publishing.

Chapters

This chapter explores the reasons behind academic fraud, focusing on the cases of Dan Ariely and Francesca Gino. It examines the role of ambition, pressure to publish, and the psychology of successful individuals who engage in unethical behavior. The chapter also delves into the idea that those who study dishonesty may be more prone to it.

Successful researchers are more likely to commit fraud.
The pressure to publish and maintain status can contribute to unethical behavior.
Researchers studying dishonesty may be more susceptible to it.

Shownotes Transcript

Probably not — the incentives are too strong. But a few reformers are trying. We check in on their progress, in an update to an episode originally published last year. (Part 2 of 2)

SOURCES:
Max Bazerman), professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.
Leif Nelson), professor of business administration at the University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business.
Brian Nosek), professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and executive director at the Center for Open Science.
Ivan Oransky), distinguished journalist-in-residence at New York University, editor-in-chief of The Transmitter, and co-founder of Retraction Watch.
Joseph Simmons), professor of applied statistics and operations, information, and decisions at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
Uri Simonsohn), professor of behavioral science at Esade Business School.
Simine Vazire), professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne and editor-in-chief of Psychological Science.
RESOURCES:
"How a Scientific Dispute Spiralled Into a Defamation Lawsuit)," by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (*The New Yorker, *2024).
"The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers)," by Noam Scheiber (*The New York Times, *2023).
"They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?)" by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (*The New Yorker, *2023).
"Evolving Patterns of Extremely Productive Publishing Behavior Across Science)," by John P.A. Ioannidis, Thomas A. Collins, and Jeroen Baas (*bioRxiv, *2023).
"Hindawi Reveals Process for Retracting More Than 8,000 Paper Mill Articles)," (*Retraction Watch, *2023).
"Exclusive: Russian Site Says It Has Brokered Authorships for More Than 10,000 Researchers)," (*Retraction Watch, *2019).
"How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data)," by Daniele Fanelli (*PLOS One, *2009).
Lifecycle Journal).
EXTRAS:
"Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia? (Update))" by *Freakonomics Radio *(2024).
"Freakonomics Goes to College, Part 1)," by *Freakonomics Radio *(2012).

Can Academic Fraud Be Stopped? (Update) 01:08:57 Share