And a prominent study on dishonesty was itself found to have fabricated data [1].
Like too much refined sugar, this is too much refined irony. What is going on?
1: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/08/gino-ari...
Like too much refined sugar, this is too much refined irony. What is going on?
1: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/08/gino-ari...
And sure, mistakes in data analysis are entirely possible. But there are lines to be drawn, always. Ariely and Gino, and now Protzko, Krosnick and company are not in the category of reasonable and honest mistakes.
On the other hand, even something with widespread effects such as the mess Excel created for genetics papers is not something that most people would find as deliberate sabotage.
Wouldn't the best experts on dishonesty get away with it leaving others none the wiser?
Perhaps delichon's hypothesis of "dark matter" dishonesty (post above) should be considered seriously.