NotPICNIC : "Note that we were all sworn... NotPICNIC : indeed "now is the time to... NotPICNIC : OK, after Omertà comes... RolfZwaan : It would be best for all involved... Gill1109 : #Förster what should be done... Wetenschap24: Opvolger-van. Dalejbarr : Trial by p-values: Preliminary... Volgende sociale psycholoog struikelt - de zaak Förster - Kloptdatwel? by @pjvanerp. Science Mag: Fresh Misconduct Charges Hit Dutch Social Psychology - Kolfschooten. Science Mag: Fresh Misconduct Charges Hit Dutch Social Psychology - Kolfschooten.
Science Mag: Fresh Misconduct Charges Hit Dutch Social Psychology - Kolfschooten. Replication Effort Provokes Praise—And 'Bullying' Charges. After a string of scandals involving accusations of misconduct and retracted papers, social psychology is engaged in intense self-examination—and the process is turning out to be painful.
This week, a global network of nearly 100 researchers unveiled the results of an effort to replicate 27 well-known studies in the field. In more than half of the cases, the result was a partial or complete failure. As the replicators see it, the failed do-overs are a healthy corrective. Trial by p-values: Preliminary thoughts on the Jens Förster report. I’ve just had a quick look at the report (available at Retraction Watch) that led to the investigation of Jens Förster for possible data manipulation.
It makes the case that the data in three of Förster’s papers are statistically highly improbable, largely due to the fact that the means for the levels of various three-level factors all tend to fall in a straight line. There are also claims about the data being far too consistent across independent studies, of effect sizes being implausibly large, and demographically implausible samples. It is dry, depressing reading.
From the comments I’ve seen on Retraction Watch and Twitter, some people are already convinced. For my part, I’m reserving judgment until the psychological/statistical community has time to complete its “post-publication peer review” of the report. RolfZwaan : Thoughtful comments by @dalejbarr... StuartJRitchie : I know it would be gossiptastic... Fresh Misconduct Charges Hit Dutch Social Psychology. AMSTERDAM—"Oh no," one Dutch psychologist tweeted last week.
"Here we go again," another lamented. Scientists here are still searching their souls about two previous scandals—involving Diederik Stapel of the Tilburg University in 2011 and Dirk Smeesters of Erasmus University in Rotterdam a year later. Now they have learned that a national research integrity panel has found evidence of data manipulation in the work of Jens Förster, a social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). The university has already announced that it will request the retraction of one of Förster's articles. The case is drawing widespread international attention as well, in part because Förster, who's German and came to Amsterdam in 2007, enjoys a sterling reputation. Kolfschooten : Vakgenoten dringen aan op breder... Martinenserink : @BrianNosek posted his email...
New Dutch psychology scandal? Inquiry cites data manipulation, calls for retraction. The University of Amsterdam has called for the retraction of a 2011 paper by two psychology researchers after a school investigation concluded that the article contained bogus data, the Dutch press are reporting.
The paper, “Sense Creative! The Impact of Global and Local Vision, Hearing, Touching, Tasting and Smelling on Creative and Analytic Thought,” was written by Jens Förster and Markus Denzler and published in Social Psychological & Personality Science. It purported to find that: Holistic (global) versus elemental (local) perception reflects a prominent distinction in psychology; however, so far it has almost entirely been examined in the domain of vision. Current work suggests that global/local processing styles operate across sensory modalities. Social psychologist Förster denies misconduct, calls charge “terrible misjudgment” Retraction Watch has obtained an email from Jens Förster, the social psychologist in the Netherlands who, as Dutch media reported this week, was the target of a misconduct investigation at the University of Amsterdam.
The inquiry led to the call for the retraction of a paper by Förster and a colleague, Markus Denzler, over concerns of data manipulation. Förster denies those claims and said Denzler was not involved in the heavy lifting for the study in question: This is an English translation of my reaction to a newspaper article that appeared in the Dutch newspaper NRC about me.Today, an article appeared in the Dutch newspaper “NRC” summarizing an investigation on my academic integrity that was opened in September 2012. The case was opened because a colleague from the methodology department at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) observed some regularities in data of three articles that are supposedly highly unlikely. Anatomy of an inquiry: The report that led to the Jens Förster investigation. Jens Förster We have obtained a copy of the report that led to the investigation of Jens Förster, the social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, which is calling for the retraction of a 2012 article by the researcher for manipulated data.
As we reported earlier, Förster has denied any wrongdoing in the matter. But as the report makes clear, investigators caught several red flags in Förster’s work. Here’s the abstract, which makes for interesting reading: Comments Richard Gill. Jens Förster We have obtained a copy of the report that led to the investigation of Jens Förster, the social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, which is calling for the retraction of a 2012 article by the researcher for manipulated data.
As we reported earlier, Förster has denied any wrongdoing in the matter. But as the report makes clear, investigators caught several red flags in Förster’s work. Here’s the abstract, which makes for interesting reading: Here we analyze results from three recent papers (2009, 2011, 2012) by Dr. RolfZwaan : Richard Gill makes some trenchant... Advalvas: Statisticus: 'UvA-hoogleraar is oplichter of volkomen incompetent'
DUB: Statisticus: “UvA-hoogleraar is oplichter of volkomen incompetent” Cursor TU/e: Statisticus: “UvA-hoogleraar is oplichter of volkomen incompetent” Gill1109 : @notPICNIC @RonDotsch #Förster... RonDotsch : @gill1109 @notPICNIC I just... Gill1109 : @RonDotsch @notPICNIC Indeed! Jjolij : @gill1109 @RonDotsch @notPICNIC... Förster report cites “unavoidable” conclusion of data manipulation. Jens Förster Last week we wrote about the 2012 complaint that triggered the investigation into Jens Förster, the social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam whose work has come under scrutiny for possible fraud.
Now we have the findings of the official investigation by Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit (the Dutch National Board for Scientific Integrity, often referred to as LOWI) — which clearly indicates that the institution believes Förster made up results. Here are some of the highlights from the document, which we’ve had translated by a Dutch speaker: “According to the LOWI, the conclusion that manipulation of the research data has taken place is unavoidable […] intervention must have taken place in the presentation of the results of the … experiment”“The analyses of the expert … did add to [the Complainant's report] that these linear patterns were specific for the primary analyses in the … article and did not show in subsets of the data, such as gender groups.
“I never manipulated data”: Förster defends actions in open letter. Jens Förster, the Dutch social psychologist accused of misconduct, has posted an open letter on his lab’s website in which he denies wrongdoing.
The letter, in English and dated May 11, offers a detailed rebuttal to the investigation’s conclusions. It also offers a rationale for Förster’s decision not to post his data on the Internet. And it’s followed by a briefer letter from Nira Liberman, who identifies herself as a collaborator of Förster’s. JelteWicherts : Mmm. I wonder where Jens Förster... Uri Simonsohn Data Colada. Recently, a psychology paper (.pdf) was flagged as possibly fraudulent based on statistical analyses (.pdf).
The author defended his paper (.html), but the university committee investigating misconduct concluded it had occurred (.pdf). In this post we present new and more intuitive versions of the analyses that flagged the paper as possibly fraudulent. We then rule out p-hacking among other benign explanation. Excessive linearityThe whistleblowing report pointed out the suspicious paper had excessively linear results. Gill1109 : Uri #Simonsohn weighs in on... Simonsohn’s Fraud Detection Technique Revealed » Random Assignment. Uri Simonsohn’s “secret” paper describing the analyses he used to detect fraud in the Dirk Smeesters and Larry Sanna cases has now been submitted for publication and is available on SSRN. It’s titled “Just Post It: The Lesson from Two Cases of Fabricated Data Detected by Statistics Alone.” Simonsohn explains the analyses he used to detect and confirm the fraud and calls on journals to make the publication of raw data their default policy. Here’s the abstract: Explaining The Oddness of Jens Förster's Data - Neuroskeptic.
Three weeks ago I covered the story of Jens Förster, the German social psychologist who was accused of scientific misconduct after statisticians noted unusual patterns in his published data. More evidence has come to light since then, but there are still no clear answers as to what really happened. In this post, I examine the data and conclude that data fabrication – whoever is responsible for it – is the only plausible scenario. Open Science Collaboration Blog · Questions and Answers about the Förster case. By Denny Borsboom, Han van der Maas, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Department of Psychological Methods, UvA By now, everyone is probably familiar with the recent investigation of the work of Dr. Förster, in which the Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit (LOWI) concluded that data reported in a paper by Dr.
Social Psychology Network. Jens Förster, a prominent Dutch social... - Social Psychology Network. RolfZwaan : In a new statement Jens Förster... Retraction Watch on Förster – maxheld. Retractionwatch has two pieces out on alleged data irregularities in work published by social psychologist Jens Förster. They cite an unnamed (!) (LOWI? , UvA?) Report dated 2012: These papers report 40 experiments involving a total of 2284 participants (2242 of which were undergraduates). RolfZwaan : @maxheld @RetractionWatch I... On the "Suspicion of Scientific Misconduct by Jens Förster" - Neuroskeptic. One week ago, the news broke that the University of Amsterdam is recommending the retraction of a 2012 paper by one of its professors, social psychologist Prof Jens Förster, due to suspected data manipulation. The next day, Förster denied any wrongdoing. Shortly afterwards, the Retraction Watch blog posted a (leaked?)
Copy of an internal report that set out the accusations against Förster. The report, titled Suspicion of scientific misconduct by Dr. Neuroskeptic - The peas! I stand corrected, it's not new. Squig : @Titchener Ja filedrawer als... Squig : UvA sees no reason to investigate ......... Martinenserink : Jens Förster, accused of data... Jens Förster. De verdwenen vragenlijsten van Jens Förster - Kolfschooten. Ewaldeng : LOL! UVA hl verweert zich tegen... Fcvheest : Tja, het is allemaal de schuld...