I'd say that he got off easy. https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/1153676804302860291 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The subjects were the editors and reviewers of the journals he targeted and more broadly their audiences. He engaged them in his fraud to prove something we already know - peer review doesn’t detect fraud. He wasted their time, violated privacy and subjected them to ridicule.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @Flickalooya and
Further the use of deception in a study is fraught, there was no mechanism to reimburse these people for their time or work, or to improve their peer review process. It’s using the machanisms of science for ideological ax-grinding.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @Flickalooya and
So in an attempt to show academic research is done poorly, he designed an unethical study, did not perform the standard task of IRB evaluation, and was busted midway through when his fraud was detected and the subjects became angry he was trying to contaminate their work.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @Flickalooya and
Real academics know if you want to do anything with people as a part of a study, even a survey, or a noninvasive ultrasound you need to seek IRB approval or waiver. You need to protect privacy. The design has to be peer reviewed and safety mechanisms evaluated. This was sloppy.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @Flickalooya and
And that presumes consent. Here there was no consent. There was deception. There was no mechanism for improvement but public shaming. There was no benefit to the subjects. There was no external review. There were no privacy protections. This was deeply unethical.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
It never ceases to amaze and appall me how little people not directly involved in human subjects research know about even the most basic ethical principles of doing research involving human subjects. The responses to Boghossian are really a shit show (e.g., "re-education camps.")
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It’s hard because this stuff is serious as a heart attack. The entire institution can be censured, even lose all federal funding for human research misadventure. Worse, Boghossian is still not contrite about this, and using lack of public understanding to generate sympathy.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes - Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.