🧵 Another Nobel Prize in Medicine at Stanford get caught committing scientific fraud
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:06:14 UTC No. 16272426
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzh
Yes, another one, because there was another Nobel Prize in Medicine, also at Stanford, was caught committing scientific fraud a few months ago. At this point, should we audit all research papers from the people who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine? To make an example. my guess is could be around 10-20% of all their published crap are fraudulent bullshit.
Remember that all the fraud that ever get caught are braindead copypasted stuffs so if those frauds literally just spend one or two hours tweaking stuffs a bit it would be impossible to get caught. the percentage of fraud in reality is actually higher.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:12:54 UTC No. 16272435
>>16272426
Most of the science since the 1950s is BS since that's when the Jews started entering science in greater number.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:15:21 UTC No. 16272437
>>16272426
cool it with the anti semitism
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:16:26 UTC No. 16272439
>>16272437
this has nothing with antisemtism. why the hell do you even think so? fuck off to
>>>/pol/
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:19:05 UTC No. 16272445
>>16272439
>fuck off
you sound emotionally invested
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:36:48 UTC No. 16272465
>>16272426
>not even peer review can detect this bullshit anymore
so why do people hype up peer review? it's clear no one is actually reading this shit anymore except for the few people looking for fraud
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:41:56 UTC No. 16272469
>>16272465
queer review never worked in the first place.
all research should be completely public and all studies should be no blind.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:52:06 UTC No. 16272471
>>16272465
I feel like peer review should mean you published your methods and other people repeated them with the same results
What it actually means is some guy somewhere said "looks good to me, see you on monday frank" and you get a double-plus good checkmark.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 05:03:35 UTC No. 16272474
>>16272465
peer review never worked
it was always liberals, leftists, corporations, Jews, and glowies patting each other on the back
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 05:07:06 UTC No. 16272477
>>16272474
>>16272471
>>16272469
t. Undergrads
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 05:22:12 UTC No. 16272492
>>16272426
um, I thought fraud only existed in the humanities?
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 05:39:54 UTC No. 16272508
>>16272426
>Another Nobel Prize in Medicine at Stanford get caught committing scientific fraud
alright. science does work, once again.
DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 06:38:23 UTC No. 16272543
>>16272426
and here thinking the chinese were frauds but it just so happens that frauds actually live next door
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 06:46:16 UTC No. 16272545
>>16272543
they have committed frauds for decades while the chinese have just started. they're the fathers of all frauds. the chinese can't compare.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 07:25:05 UTC No. 16272557
>>16272426
society is fake, politicians are fake, academics are fake.....
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:19:19 UTC No. 16272621
>>16272465
>so why do people hype up peer review?
Science in general progressed according to its usefulness, in physics and other sciences the most useful or correct theories progressed, while the useless or false theories stopped developing.
while much of science advanced by internal knowledge between groups of scientists, personal correspondence or going to events to share theories or joint work of researchers from different parts, the journals were works for the scientific public of scientific communities, more elaborate works or that could be shared after years of polishing or testing by other members.
Journals, papers and conferences began to be ways to know much of the latest knowledge avoiding waiting for recompilatory books or not needing to work with X research group or researcher.
The books would be knowledge base and the serial papers would be the frontier of knowledge or loose and quick works on a topic that does not have enough to be a book.
So a lot of the referenced work or work that the general public can think about science is in the form of papers or journals.
But it's really just a means of communication between scientists, only the most important work is referenced in a general way, where a huge number of papers are forgotten or have no development, it's just a means of communicating ideas.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:22:22 UTC No. 16272623
>>16272621
Now the changes in the system are to link publications in high impact journals as a way to have a career in science, the need for an H-index (that the papers of a researcher are cited in their papers by other researchers) and that the most prestigious journals only accept the papers most likely to be of high impact, plus the linked funding, the peer review.
Peer review is a form of quality control to avoid papers that are not productive or that researchers do not publish stupid things or with very basic problems in methodology, the only thing that peer review tries to mitigate is that researchers do not waste their time on bad papers, but as a researcher and much of the work is really to investigate whether what is used as a basis is real, the biggest problem with the system are with works that require huge amounts of time or money to be done as medical tests or expensive experiments, which for most researchers can not do.
But in general the system of journals and papers is a communication system like the congresses, but the subject of science itself is still in experiments, the publication system itself is for continuous or punctual improvements to systems, groundbreaking ideas are really accepted when the whole scientific system does not want to be left behind and ends up using the new ideas.
The current system gives very little value to the fact that if a researcher spends decades in a faculty doing research on something and then publishes a book used by the whole world, the knowledge becomes general use and the citations would not be as if they had been papers.
Considering that scientific research are papers or journals and peer review is science, is a version of the world that journalists and media have created and that an endless number of disseminators have spread.
When the big companies that manage the most important journals, such as Axel Springer, are also media companies, the media started to talk about journals as science.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:24:17 UTC No. 16272624
>>16272465
Because if they didn't the whole house of cards would collapse and lots of people would be out of a job and, maybe worst of all to these worms, lose prestige
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:26:56 UTC No. 16272627
>>16272623
>Considering that scientific research are papers or journals and peer review is science, is a version of the world that journalists and media have created and that an endless number of disseminators have spread.
>When the big companies that manage the most important journals, such as Axel Springer, are also media companies, the media started to talk about journals as science.
good summary
now who owns the media?
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:11:12 UTC No. 16272651
>>16272445
NTA but sure, many on /sci/ are. We did outr PhD, did a few postdoc rounds, and then didn't get tenure. Watching people float to the top of the pile using oput and out fraud really grinds my gears.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:14:18 UTC No. 16272655
>>16272492
I wish. Retraction Watch has plenty of work on fraud in life sciences, but fraud is also known from physics.
>>16272508
>alright. science does work, once again.
It is way too late. He got away with it long enbough to build an entire career on fraud. Honest people didn't get there and taxpayer's money was misdirected.
The Alzheimer scandal shows how serious this can get.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:34:39 UTC No. 16273269
>>16272469
>all research should be completely public
If funded by the government, yes.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:38:23 UTC No. 16273274
>>16272471
It's not THAT bad. Obviously they don't reproduce your results. Reviewers assume your results are legitimate and decide if your conclusions are actually supported by the evidence you present. Did you make your case or not? And did you make a good enough case for a good enough result to be published in our esteemed journal? If not, you should publish in this back-alley rag instead of our prestigious periodical, you lowlife.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:59:59 UTC No. 16273433
>>16273269
The only research that gets published is either worthless or its a lie thats planted in the academic press for the purpose of being used as propaganda. On the rare occasion that something of legitimate worth and value is discovered, the information is kept secret so it can be privatized and exploited for maximum gain by the discoverers.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 00:11:43 UTC No. 16273451
>>16272426
10-20%? lol. Over 90% of med 'science' is paid for and rigged by the pharmaceutical industry which is one of the most immoral and fraudulent industries in world history
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 00:13:21 UTC No. 16273453
>>16272439
Because jews run the pharmaceutical industry
Not saying all jews are bad, just saying why the other anon jokingly called it antisemitic to call out medical fraud
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 01:37:46 UTC No. 16273558
>>16273274
I was a bit hyperbolic, of course they'll check to see if you actually did a valid experiment, but there should be replication requirements for the highest tier of science publishing.
If you get a Nobel prize, you shouldn't have gotten a 1 off result.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:45:14 UTC No. 16273861
>>16272426
Good channel. Very cute watching this guy lose his faith in his own academic discipline
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:08:58 UTC No. 16274910
>>16272426
> faker
> named Pseudoff
can't make this shit up
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:13:42 UTC No. 16274920
>>16272426
>At this point, should we audit all research papers from the people who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine?
Ideally we should be auditing all research papers
The reason fraud in academia is off the scale is because no one actually gives a shit what anyone else is publishing. As long as your bullshit is plausible no one is going to check it, because referees get 0 career benefit from deboonking a submission
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:28:28 UTC No. 16275141
>>16274910
>speilmann
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:24:29 UTC No. 16276290
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 21:02:49 UTC No. 16276524
>>16274920
>Ideally we should be auditing all research papers
Yes. And hopefully an AI can be used to check if images have been copied with different text attached, a common pattern in fraud. Thousands of papers in life sciences have been retracted up to now, an AI can raise that by orders of magnitude and in more fields.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 01:17:37 UTC No. 16276782
is there any science that isn't fake?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:21:51 UTC No. 16277104
>>16272426
Excellent! Science works!
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:24:40 UTC No. 16277106
>>16272655
>It is way too late.
No such thing in science.
One by one, fast or slow, the bullshitters fall as others further investigate.
This has happened countless times in the past. Such is human nature, and such is human progress.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:17:25 UTC No. 16278335
>>16276782
soiyence is 100% fake, science is the polar opposite of soiyence.
academia only engages in soiyence
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:46:20 UTC No. 16278417
>>16273861
kek, world would be a better place, if all academics, politicians, media propagandists and their gorillionaire masters were lined up and shot.
We need a reset.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:02:33 UTC No. 16278433
>>16276782
>>16278335
We build things by trial and error, not by completely understanding the underlying fundamentals and how things work.
Most of science is soiyence™ because of the delusion that science has explained everything, which isn't true.
For example - Gravity as we know it is nothing but an abstraction created by us to comprehend an actual (real) natural phenomena, we know almost nothing about, all the math andbmeasurements related to it are result of various trial and error experiments, we have perfected them over time, same is true of other things like Evolution.
When people talk about science, what they really mean is "Engineering", it is Engineering that builds everything, and as I already said, it is completely based on trial and error, thus "science" is by definition not trustable.
That said the whole "philosophy of science" shit is a meme, it is nothing but a pretentious way of saying "trial and error", and it isn't some intellectuals achievement, people have known about trial and error since time immemorial, in all ages people have applied this method to figure out things, earlier the means were limited and hence was knowledge, with time the means developed and so did the knowledge.
Barkon Approved Post at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:03:23 UTC No. 16278434
>>16278433
Mouf, now
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:14:20 UTC No. 16278446
Biology and medicine are not sciences
economy is not a science
sociology ... LOL
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:27:12 UTC No. 16278459
>>16272623
>Peer review is a form of quality control to avoid papers that are not productive or that researchers do not publish stupid things or with very basic problems in methodology, the only thing that peer review tries to mitigate is that researchers do not waste their time on bad papers, but as a researcher and much of the work is really to investigate whether what is used as a basis is real, the biggest problem with the system are with works that require huge amounts of time or money to be done as medical tests or expensive experiments, which for most researchers can not do.
the truth is that there's no punishment for the academics who are more and more fraudsters
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:27:05 UTC No. 16279542
>>16272426
Pubpeer seems to be trying to improve a peer review process. I imagine that it will turn into reddit or wokepedos at some point. With editors just drudging up endless shit on political enemies. But for now, it is the frontier.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 00:02:32 UTC No. 16279591
>>16272426
Why is anyone surprised at this point?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 00:22:26 UTC No. 16279611
>>16272426
more like "Shamford" LOL
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 00:51:00 UTC No. 16279642
>>16272426
Scientific progress is bound to stop happening inside academic circles.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 03:33:19 UTC No. 16279806
Rewatch the whole video again. This guy had 35 papers flagged on pubpeer and many of the mentioned fraudulent papers in the video are directly related to his Nobel Prize winning thesis. This means a straight up fradulent line of research got the Nobel Prize in Medicine. No replication, no checking of important result found anywhere in this fucking field. The whole medicine field also has the most people working in. What a fucking joke that medicine is. It's sociology tier. They should not call themselves scientists until their issues is sorted out. Shameful.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 12:06:08 UTC No. 16280181
>>16279806
Pubpeer tells the story better. I went through about 40 posts the other day, mostly on studhoff. There are only a couple of issues with the images, it isn't fraud. Most of it seems to be copy / pasting errors with a couple other issues. Next time I browse around I will construct screencaps of these stories.
He rebuts particular checkers, but he doesn't recognize that they are casting a wide net and check many hundreds of papers.
One of the other findings is that publishers are modifying original images for publishing. This is primarilyy content listing changes - like adding a number or font format on an image. They are paying some poojeet or other moron that copies and pastes other image data to hide blemishing of the original picture.
There have been some strange outliers in his record. Picrel is regions that are copy paste which are likely irrelevant for the paper and the publishers.
See link below for another strange exchange where they have taken creative liberties in how they present images on a paper.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/C2
I suspect Elizabeth Bik is working in a team to capture their result statistically. She apparently just uses her eyes to detect these image copy and pastes.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:38:05 UTC No. 16280556
>>16272439
The joke is that when you make stereotypically antisemitic accusations without referencing jews themselves you still get called an antisemite, only confirming the stereotype.
For example, saying that you want to kill all pedophiles may cause some people to accuse you of wanting to exterminate jews, "them" making such accusation suggests that jews are pedophiles and aware of it.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 03:29:56 UTC No. 16281937
>>16272651
You must not be as high IQ as you presume you are if you can't figure out how to accomplish what others are able to do. Enjoy your grandiose delusions of intellectual competency and your worthless degrees.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 04:18:48 UTC No. 16281971
>>16272426
>should we audit all research papers from the people who won the Nobel Prize
Are we... not already doing this?
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 05:33:53 UTC No. 16283194
>>16281971
Clearly not, there was just a bunch of retractions from Thomas Südhof a fairly recent Nobel winner in medicine
sven at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:45:59 UTC No. 16283408
>>16272426
was he (his team) trolling the peer reviewers?
Throwing in some dog bones for them to catch?
After all the meticulous work awarding them a Nobel, to just have tards peer-reviewing could be a bit demotivational.
This is positive stuff that would motivate peers to take a closer look in the future!
If the scandal is undeniable then I hope they gather data for future analysis of the cause of such behavior (genetics, MRIs, gut microbiome etc!).
sven at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 12:03:30 UTC No. 16283415
>>16278417
>We need a reset.
Just move out to a shack in the woods and be the change you want to see.
Don't be a needy brat demanding society to fall with your own broken view of reality. This is life, it is hard-core and you must navigate if not mastering it.
Anonynous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 12:16:49 UTC No. 16283423
>>16283415
The woods are disappearing, namefag. We're running out of places to go.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:06:07 UTC No. 16283505
>>16283423
Woods will grow where we don't live. For example all over Chernobyl.
As the Gulfstream continues to decrease in strength the new ice age will arrive making Sahara a lush rainforest again. As googolion tonnes of ice collects at the poles new fertile land will be revealed by the sea. New fields of oil discovered and life find a way as always.
You're on the summit of mount Dunning-Kreuger if you don't know how to read Englanders climate charts derived from ice core samples hundreds of thousands of years back, but still try to motivate being worried about global warming.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:28:38 UTC No. 16283594
>>16283505
High level cope from an ignorant fuckarse who never finished high school.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 04:19:00 UTC No. 16284522
>>16272465
>peer review
Imagine trusting your colleagues to grade your own shit properly.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 04:23:09 UTC No. 16284525
>>16283423
>I'm an expert in nature because I never leave the city
why are so many urbanites like this?
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:44:40 UTC No. 16284869
>>16272426
>my guess is could be around 10-20% of all their published crap are fraudulent bullshit.
You mean 60-70%.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 14:21:38 UTC No. 16285040
>>16272439
>fuck off to /pol/
In case you haven't noticed, /sci/ is just /pol/ for anons who want to pretend they're intelligent.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:17:43 UTC No. 16286148
>>16284522
"peer review" is just a polite way of saying "collusion"
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:39:31 UTC No. 16286172
>>16272426
meds
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:50:48 UTC No. 16286400
why is a science fraud thread on auto-sage...
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:51:51 UTC No. 16286404
>>16286400
nevermind
i thought it was because it was on page 8 already
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:57:58 UTC No. 16286676
>>16286404
soijak spam, board is currently hitting page ten in under an hour, bump all non soi threads and report all soi threads and mods might do something
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 11:53:42 UTC No. 16287041
>>16272426
How long will it take all the lies to be exposed?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:43:05 UTC No. 16287168
>>16272426
>another fraudulent psychologist/"neuroscientist" "researcher"
how do you retards not see the patterns here? psychology and neuroscience are a load of BS. even psychologists agree that psychology is NOT a science.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:46:57 UTC No. 16287176
>>16272465
there have been cases where reviewers noticed oddities and editors overruled them anyway.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 06:07:14 UTC No. 16288128
>>16272465
>so why do people hype up peer review?
it hyped up because its a means of controlling narratives, thats the only reason it was popularized to begin with.
"soviet" is russian for "committee"
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 05:20:36 UTC No. 16289269
>>16283594
>muh high school diploma!!!
>muh high school diploma muffugguh!!!
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 09:02:29 UTC No. 16289375
>>16289269
based
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 07:45:59 UTC No. 16290589
>>16272426
what is it with Stanford and academic fraud? are they trying to outdo Harvard or something
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 16:34:55 UTC No. 16290980
>>16280181
there're more proof here that he copy pasted a fuck ton of image patches in his work. definitely a scam and a fraud 100% with all of this historical pattern. need an audit on all of his work to check which one is fraud which one is not. also need to audit all derivative work as well
https://pubpeer.com/publications/F7
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 07:01:26 UTC No. 16291864
>>16290980
its funny how people who can't do math are incapable of successfully falsifying data
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 02:57:40 UTC No. 16293016
>>16291864
people who can't do math are bad at pattern recognition in general
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 04:49:53 UTC No. 16294354
>>16278417
typical chud. No wonder one of yours shot at your god emperor.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 19:52:13 UTC No. 16295122
>>16290980
This is surprising to me. I had read through this thread when I first looked through pubpeer. It is interesting that they discovered more defects afterward. How many people, including myself, didn't see the defects when looking at an image specifically with the mind for looking for such defects. Of course she is paid to recognize such things. I think they should formalize their approach a little bit, because stringing accusations looks bad(jumping the gun) and defense of them also looks tailored.
I see studhof is still making bad defenses as well.
I think if I were him I would just stick with the link to the site with his rebuttals.
There are a couple other papers where false data was copy and pasted in the same sequence. They retracted those as well.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 21:00:24 UTC No. 16295253
>>16295122
>It is interesting that they discovered more defects afterward
defect? nice try Studoff. they're straight up fraudulent images. Very hard to defend this kind of thing as not being deliberate and some kind of accidents.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 16:17:37 UTC No. 16296136
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 04:17:06 UTC No. 16296931
>>16272439
>this has nothing with antisemtism
unfortunate, /sci/ need more antisemtism
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 04:27:35 UTC No. 16296937
>>16272426
Modern science has to align with Judeo Bolshevik values anyway.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:51:16 UTC No. 16298451
>>16296931
TSMT
>>16296937
you're confusing soience with actual real science
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 03:56:43 UTC No. 16299900
>>16298451
>you're confusing soience with actual real science
newfags do that all the time
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 23:15:12 UTC No. 16301075
>>16273861
People should have faith in God alone, not in other humans. Treating academics like infallible deities is something only a moron would do to begin with
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:06:45 UTC No. 16302227
>>16301075
if there are people who want to treat academics like infallible deities then there will be people who become academics strictly for the purpose of manipulating and ruling over the people who want to treat academics like infallible deities, such is human nature
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:17:42 UTC No. 16302252
>>16272426
>>16272437
Oh yeah? How come all of these cases involve gentiles?
Could it be they have to cheat to keep up with the intelligence of God's chosen? Pathetic.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 04:49:45 UTC No. 16302842
>>16272426
New rule: if you get got faking data your supply of BBC will be permanently cut off.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 04:51:47 UTC No. 16302843
>>16272426
New rule: if you get caught faking data your supply of BBC will be permanently cut off.
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:29:50 UTC No. 16304290
>>16302843
there are no penalties for faking data, thats why everyone does it. dude built his career on data fraud and he is suffering no negative consequences as a result
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 05:10:27 UTC No. 16305507
>>16272426
Really makes you wonder how many other Nobel recipients also cheated their way to get the prize.
Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 00:02:32 UTC No. 16306378
>>16305507
>everyone new things fell down before newton, he just made the equation.
>really we should have given props to grug, for first describing downward motion in 2.5 million BCE
Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:20:23 UTC No. 16307014
>>16272623
>When the big companies that manage the most important journals, such as Axel Springer, are also media companies, the media started to talk about journals as science.
Springer =/= Axel Springer
they're completely independent from each other
Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 06:31:56 UTC No. 16308186
>>16301075
>Treating academics like infallible deities is something only a moron would do to begin with
50% of all people are 100IQ or below. Those people are dumb so they will always do dumb things and have dumb beliefs, such is the nature of the beast.
Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 06:46:53 UTC No. 16308196
>>16276524
people are still feeding it garbage info either way
as it's trained on biased data
garbage in, garbage out
Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 20:16:15 UTC No. 16308858
>>16285040
I don't have to pretend. That's for academics.
Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:23:50 UTC No. 16309123
>>16272426
>neurobiology
Definitely one of the more fraudulent biological sciences
Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:53:00 UTC No. 16309147
>>16280181
>which are likely irrelevant for the paper and the publishers
In no world is copy and pasting lanes on top of other lanes "irrelevant"
Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 21:34:02 UTC No. 16310252
>>16309123
>more fraudulent
so they're all fraudulent, just some more so than others
Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 23:30:33 UTC No. 16311522
>>16278417
Based. It all needs to be thrown out. At least someone here isn't fucking retarded.
Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 15:06:00 UTC No. 16312280
>>16272426
An honesty research, Francesca Gino, has the spotlight on her for plagiarism and fraudulent data on honesty studies.
https://datacolada.org/109
She was stripped of status at Harvard and other such consequences of the alleged activity. She is suing those researchers that are calling her out for $25(?) million. But apparently this brings discovery into the picture and now there is a public eye on Harvard's process, including how they determined that she was to be stripped of recognition.
One would expect Harvard conducted an investigation. Would a university use in-house investigators or do they use third party?