It was a metaphor. From the knee-jerk reactions to this hoax, you can safely conclude that the disciplines in question perceived it as protest.
-
-
Replying to @DorianGray321 @gorskon and
So let's talk about the study then. I said it's unethical to lie to people over the course of a study, and in cases where it seems justified to do so, the least you could do is debrief the people you lied to afterwards.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
1. They were not lied to. It was tested, if BS Paper would pass the oder review. 2. If you lied to people, for a study, I agree with you.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DorianGray321 @gorskon and
When you hand in a paper you click on the little checkmark that says you followed scientific standards, generated the data yourself, etc. So, clicking that checkmark when you didn't do those things means you're lying.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Yes. The *whole point* being that the reviewers are not able to identify, if those standards are met, because of intellectual corruption and a tremendeous amount of BS published as "science" being around.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DorianGray321 @RayTski and
No. Peer review does not detect fraud. That is known. Science functions on the honor system. You don’t expect to have to counter deception and peer review is well known to do poorly at it. It’s proven nothing.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @RayTski and
Your discipline is in a sad state then. I know it happens everywhere, nur it is the ecxeption and comes with huge consequences, if detected. Not in these disciplines...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DorianGray321 @MarkHoofnagle and
This study doesn't provide any evidence about the prevalence of fraud, nor about what happens if it's detected.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RayTski @MarkHoofnagle and
Nothing happens. All this pseudo scientists publishing their gibberish - with zero citations -driven by a political agenda, are still there, earning funding money. So, all is good.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DorianGray321 @RayTski and
I guarantee you, none of those humanities papers they’re complaining about have federal grants. I know, I’ve looked, you’re required to show your funding sources. At best they get private foundation money. Usually those departments are supported by tuition and dept funds.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Yup. But if the university receives federal research funding, it doesn't matter for purposes of following the Common Rule and federal research regulations. All research at such institutions, regardless of funding source, must comply with federal regulations. PSU had no choice.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
If he had followed the rules, his proposed research probably would have been deemed Exempt. But the IRB has to be informed and affirmatively make that determination (a researcher can’t just declare their project exempt). It’s a super low burden to meet; pathetic he’s whining.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @stacy_rie @gorskon and
Exactly. The standards for making this hoax project into an acceptable research design are not expecially high. But he doesn’t know much at all about the thresholds, low or high.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.