Talk:Data Colada

Reliable sources with coverage
Here's a list of sources that can be used to expand/support the article. I don't think any are super in depth, though AncientWalrus (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/24/business/economy/francesca-gino-harvard-dishonesty.html
 * https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/6/23/alleged-data-fraud-gino/
 * https://www.ft.com/content/a8c07365-f85d-47a0-98a4-b6f71da697ef
 * https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/08/28/how-data-detectives-spotted-fake-numbers-in-a-widely-cited-paper
 * https://www.jpost.com/international/dan-ariely-scrutinized-for-fraud-unauthorized-experiment-678444
 * https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/1/hbs-research-submitted-for-retraction/
 * https://www.science.org/content/article/harvard-behavioral-scientist-aces-research-fraud-allegations
 * https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fake-data-scandal-ensnares-2-215629351.html
 * https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-dishonesty-expert-stands-accused-of-fraud-scholars-who-worked-with-her-are-scrambling
 * https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-dishonest-study-on-dishonesty-puts-a-prominent-researcher-on-the-hot-seat

Statement

 * The suit does not contest or refute the defendants' scientific findings. It asserts that since the researchers used inference and probability to argue that the anomalies between the original dataset and the data used in Gino's analyses could not have been due to random chance or benign error, and therefore occurred from fraudulent manipulation, the defendants cannot prove she in particular committed the scientific misconduct.

I'm having trouble parsing this. Are there words missing? Has anyone checked the source to see if it reflects what was written? Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving the article a close read. About this passage, which I didn't author myself (as noted in the corresponding edit summary, it came from the corresponding section in Francesca Gino, where it had been added by someone else in August and still remains unchanged right now):
 * The meaning seems clear to me - it's just that the second sentence is quite awkwardly written. Perhaps it is a bit easier to parse when shortened as follows: The suit [...] asserts that since the researchers used inference and probability to argue that the anomalies [...] occurred from fraudulent manipulation, the defendants cannot prove she in particular committed the scientific misconduct.
 * However, it indeed doesn't seem to be fully supported by the cited WaPo article - for starters, some of Gino's statements that it quotes are from her social media posts, not the lawsuit itself. (I hadn't checked this in detail because it matched broadly what I recalled reading about the lawsuit in other RS.) It's also a bit imprecise in mixing up separate defensive arguments (1. Gino claiming that the findings are merely probabilistic in nature and don't constitute definite proof of misconduct, vs. 2. Gino implying that the misconduct for which these papers were retracted was committed by some unnamed other people in each case, rather than herself), and in combining the findings of Harvard's own internal investigation (by a forensic research firm) with Data Colada's.
 * While it should be possible to address these issues using other sources (which I might still do later in the article Francesca Gino), on reflection I think we don't need to go into this in this article anyway. So I have just replaced it by a more direct quote from Gino via the cited WaPo article, while rewriting the entire lawsuit section (which, as also already mentioned in the aforementioned edit summary, needed to focus more on aspects particular to this article's subject anyway).
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)