The Burden of Proof Is on the Co-Authors

5min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

There are ways in which you could try to combat this, but all of this is assuming that this is probably a bigger problem than it is. It does seem like you could take some steps though as a field. You know, I think it would be ideal if Qualtrics, if you could like once you collected data, Qualtrics could verify that you haven't touched it and that gets automatically published. But then it's not just fraud that you might detect by having that sort of a system. Much more common, the fraud is just innocent mistakes. Like what we were talking about with the genomics where Excel switched numbers because it automatically converted what they thought was a string value to

A VBW exclusive report! For years David and Tamler have been a little dismissive of fears about cancel culture in academia but now the SJWs have come for one of our own! We welcome back Yoel Inbar to talk about his experience applying for a position at UCLA psychology only to have his candidacy pulled at the last minute because of remarks he made on his podcast (!) about diversity statements. What does this mean for freedom of expression in academia? Should we advise our students and younger faculty to watch what they say when it comes to politically charged topics? Are they really going to start combing through podcast episodes now – is nothing sacred?

Plus another case of fraud in psychology comes to light courtesy of the Data Colada guys.

Data Colada post about Gino fraud