Is it morally wrong to publish fraudulent research?

>implying the publishers would respond to another white knight redditor on allegations of scientific misconduct

But I don't evenwork in academia or government anymore. I do something completely unrelated to what I did my PhD, masters and bachelors in.

You are everything that is wrong with academia.
You deserve to work at McDonald's for the rest of your life.
Imagine someone trying to learn taking your results as fact, building their understanding based on your fraud. How tragic would that be, built on falsehoods paraded as fact...disgusting

I don't think you're the first one to do that. What is your field OP?

That's OK then.

If he knew that karma was going to hit him he would
But that's the point of karma, you just don't know
The pic should ve been more of a pyramid though

*labyrinth
I'm a dummy

>be me
>start working at the department of mechanics right after graduating
>small industrial project, we have to compute results with a "new" technique
>my boss says "user dont worry this was already done by this french guy, he did a PhD on it so you're safe, we already know it works we just wanna train you etc."
>ok
>fast forward a few months
>shit aint working on the mechanical simulation, everyone's perplexed.
>read the dude's PhD thesis IN FRENCH
>mostly descriptive, in a "you have to believe what I say, I published papers on this" way.
>ask for papers
>they are the same shit, they explain a simple clase first, then "annotate" the complex one without really saying anything, then post pics with results without saying what are they comparing and with what.
>ask for the dude's code
>after 2 weeks diving in it I get it to work
>same fucking problem we were having, with this supossedly "working" code he used for the thesis.
>turns out it was fraudulent as fuck, too many details to explain here on Veeky Forums but
>end point: we were fucked, I left the department as soon as my contract ended, my bosses had to put hours and hours to get it to work.

PEOPLE LIKE YOU DESERVE TO DIE.

OP, I think we need to know, what are the practical implications for anyone following your work?

Organic electronics?

What were your bosses reaction when they found out the research was fraud? Were they like "I don't care, FIX IT. I NEED THIS DONE YESTERDAY!" or were they as shocked as you?

shocked. They couldn't get too angry because they were friends with the thesis director of the french guy.
I have to say they were pretty supportive and helped me a lot when shit hitted the fan.

Did you report the frenchie?

Not much. Except that this field is dying in reality but kept alive by memes. Whatever money there was initially has already been made and patented.

Well you sure got lucky. I once had a boss who forced me to work on a project that he knew was doomed to failure.

Well, there's only two ways to go. Chalk it up to experience, forget it and move on. Or come clean, bare your soul and beat your breast and beg forgiveness from whomever you need to.

>implying karma is real

Reread my post god damn brainlet

>Is it morally wrong to publish fraudulent research?

What the fuck kind of question is that? How would it not be?

That's not what karma is...

what are your initials, area of research, and institution, so that nobody will risk quoting you?

Is your supervisor first author?

>doctored graphs and images

Contact the journal(s) and send a updated/corrected version of your papers.

>Is it morally wrong to publish fraudulent research?
Yes. Both because your research is misleading and may slow down progress in your field, and because it undoubtedly violates the ethics of your funding body and university.
>But in my defence my supervisor was forcing the publish or perish meme on me, so I published.
That means if you can't publish, you do better work or aim lower. If you're already at the lowest tier of journals, maybe it's time to git gud or quit.

retractionwatch.com/
?

Academia will fucking stone you to death if they find out.

And let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I unironically support academics who have never published fraudulent research literally stoning to death those who ever have.

Yes, and this because academics question everything, and reject so much, including obvious moral principles, for the sake of a greater intellectual inquiry. Moralities of any kind, even unto depravity, are regularly supposed and discussed, and we are told that they must be entertained "for discussion".

But the minute that someone writes a fraud, or plagarizes, or scoops, or rips off, or cheats on a test, etc, (as opposed to, you know, /actually killing another human being, raping someone, fiddling a minor etc/) /then/ we see the real bedrock of an academic's morality, which forsakes the latter more real considerations in favor of the former, more abstract (and personal, for them) ones: /hey, you're being dishonest. That is the worst thing that you can possibly be, certainly not doing literal violence to others/.) I leave aside the obvious pushback here where dishonesty leads to bad social policy etc, but that's an expanded discussion. My immediate point is to underline the stupidity of the academic value system, or code, an outright luxury, when compared with other more immediate codes.

Academics are weak old skinnyfats whose own code, own morality, is but another specific and self-interested morality, which is really a far sight removed from other higher, prior moral considerations.

is this whole publish or perish thing really that bad? is it going to hit some kind of breaking point when fraudulent research becomes so much of a nuisance? jesus this is depressing

Tell me more about how the DOE's interests in fast computers taints the research they fund on faster computers

Yes it's morally wrong. You can lead science in the wrong direction and have people on a goose chase and making fraudulent claims based on your work.

Nobody is going to do it because people are lazy. He likely won't be called on his shit due to the PhD and the fact that a lot of people are statistically illiterate and take graphs for what they are instead of asking for the raw data and double checking the presentation. The only one who'll catch it is his supervisor, and of they don't catch it nobody likely will.

has this ever actually happened

It is never more moral to publish fraudulent findings than publish the truth. Outside of implications in academia, fraudulent findings can literally affect the economy, product/tech development, politics/government decisions, and more. People with PhDs quite literally have a social responsibility to not lie with their research. The impact can change the direction of human history depending on the "finding" and the field. It's completely understandable why someone would advocate for the death of someone lying about research.

You have clearly not read and understood my post, because I explicitly anticipated your correct concern that lies lead to bad social policy, which can lead to mass human death, catastrophe, etc, which I purport to dislike and wish to avoid.

You also (perhaps, it's possible I'm misreading your rhetoric) seem to falsely intimate by your first sentence here that I suggested that it is more moral to publish false things than to publish the truth. That is not the comparison that I made, and that is perfectly clear by reading my post .

The point that I made, is that cultural academic argument over fraud, plagarism, and related categories of intellectual misrepresentation and/or intellectual theft, always, and of-themselves insofar as they are nascent, and not immediatley impactful upon lived human experience (that was a tedious clause, as is this parentheses, but it's necessary to frame the thing properly), I say that such academic arguments, such academic culture, are a specific and a lesser value system in a definite, "dumb-simple" sense: it is a quite different thing for two comfy old skinnyfat professors to be locked in some departmental or legal fight over the status (honest/dishonest/plagarism/legal/illegal/ethical/etc) of their work, while that skinny Somalia baby dies of thirst or something. The latter precedes the former, and not the other way round.

cont.

I've also anticipated the need to have the larger discussion about this side of academia, and the real (potentially bad) social policy entailed by bogus publications, fraud, etc. Treachery was most hated by Dante, and there is a long tradition of hating and expelling liars, I appreciate that as well. We were all children once, and those of us who are not sociopaths understand that telling lies is bad, because it leads to a cognitive dissonance, getting in trouble, etc, /misrepresenting reality/. But that wasn't my above point, which was to underline the more basic absurdity of the idea that wilfully publishing a bogus paper is down on a moral Cocytus with, say, running abortion clinics (you don't have to be, nor should you be religious to still appreciate how execrable the latter practice is), being a contract killer, a Stalin, a Hitler, etc.

Killing /now/, /directly/, is worse than killing /later/, /indirectly/, /with arguably good intentions/, etc. The remaining consideration is thus one of scale, and this observation dovetails into the possibility of a real discussion, for which I've mentioned actually comparing academic fraud with again, say, someone shooting someone else on the street, in cold blood, or for no reason, or so on.

I earlier entertained academic alternative moralities in a vague way, which might be more attributed to non-STEM fields, but upon reflection STEM endeavour is just as susceptible to depravity: for example, wishing to effect biological immortality, or absurd life extension.

>Is it morally wrong to publish fraudulent research?
You knew the answer to this before posting.

www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/the-stem-cell-scandal/amp

Just get legitimate results and notify wherever you published them that there was a mistake, and send them the correct shit

>pilot wave has been proven true
>copenhagen has been debunked
>copenhagen is still taught because old relics can't handle change
everyone's OK with this

>some random user on some meaningless paper fudged some numbers
omg you're distorting all of science!

You're an incredibly boring person who think he's being deep and your writing style is painful to read. Please leave this board until you turn 18.

Yeah you morally void cunt, course its amoral

Yeah, I'm gonna need you to sit your pseudo-intellectual ass down, pls.

Pilot wave has not been proven.

I think you never opened an actual introduction to QM book

If morality lies in doing what we feel is right, and if we consider that stringency in research is essential to make science worthwhile, then we could argue that falsifying research is immoral and thus that punishing such behaviour is moral.

I don't think you need a moral case, tho, since there is the pragmatic one that science doesn't work if people make up their results, and for that reason alone it is a good idea to punish fraudsters.

What field OP?

If social science related, no-one would notice because they are all fraudulent. In medicine any industry sponsored research is garbage, etc.

Just hope nobody finds out. And if they do, just play dumb "it was a mistake". Everybody does it; its how this world works.

No I am not, there's nothing wrong with my prose, I'll continue posting here as I please, there's nothing that you can do about it, and I'm past thirty. :^)

who is Mark Hauser?