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. GLOMO Förster heeft naam gemaakt als de bedenker van GLOMO, het GLObal versus LOcal processing Model.
Het is een brede theorie over menselijke waarneming en informatieverwerking, waarin doorgaans twee polen te onderscheiden zouden zijn: globale verwerking en locale verwerking. Een simpel voorbeeld is de Navon-taak, met het soort figuurtje dat ook in zijn tests gebruikt wordt: Globaal bekeken staat hier een letter H, lokaal bekeken staan er dertien letters L. Deze conceptuele tweedeling verklaart GLOMO van toepassing op vrijwel het complete scala van mentale activiteiten, met associaties als: Globale verwerking Lokale verwerking Goed humeur Slecht humeur Liefde Sex Op promotie gericht Op preventie gericht Laag niveau van autisme Hoog niveau van autisme Rechter hersenhelft Linker hersenhelft.
GLOMO zegt nog net niet: globaal = goed, lokaal = slecht, maar veel scheelt het niet. Förster heeft inmiddels gereageerd op het LOWI-rapport, en ontkent elk wangedrag. Dalejbarr : Trial by p-values: Preliminary... Volgende sociale psycholoog struikelt - de zaak Förster - Kloptdatwel? by @pjvanerp. Na de schandalen rond Diederik Stapel en Dirk Smeesters is nu weer een hoogleraar sociale psychologie ernstig in de problemen gekomen.
Het Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit oordeelt dat professor Jens Förster, verbonden aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam, in minstens één artikel data heeft gebruikt, die eigenlijk niet op een normale wijze verkregen kan zijn. 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. “Replication helps us make sure what we think is true really is true,” says Brent Donnellan, a psychologist at Michigan State University in East Lansing who has undertaken three recent replications of studies from other groups—all of which came out negative.
“We are moving forward as a science,” he says. But rather than a renaissance, some researchers on the receiving end of this organized replication effort see an inquisition. Schnall, however, says that her work was “defamed.” 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.
The case started in September 2012, when a whistleblower sent UvA a 35-page complaint about three of Förster’s studies. Intrigued, the researcher asked Förster to send him raw data from the experiments. 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. But according to this article in the NRC Handelsblad (with an assist from Google Translate): The NRC reports that the inquiry found:
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.
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: Here we analyze results from three recent papers (2009, 2011, 2012) by Dr. Read the whole report here. 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' UvA-hoogleraar Jens Förster is niet het slachtoffer van een heksenjacht, zoals hij zelf zegt.
Hij is ofwel een oplichter of volkomen incompetent, zegt de Leidse hoogleraar mathematische statistiek Richard Gill. Deze week werd bekend dat een wetenschappelijk artikel van UvA-hoogleraar Jens Förster wordt teruggetrokken, omdat de data gemanipuleerd zijn. Hij is een grote naam in de sociale psychologie, veel groter dan Diederik Stapel ooit was. Deze maand zou hij een onderzoekspremie van vijf miljoen euro krijgen om aan een Duitse universiteit Humboldt-professor te worden, maar dat gaat voorlopig niet door.
DUB: Statisticus: “UvA-hoogleraar is oplichter of volkomen incompetent” Cursor TU/e: Statisticus: “UvA-hoogleraar is oplichter of volkomen incompetent” 6 mei 2014 Afgelopen week werd bekend dat een wetenschappelijk artikel van UvA-hoogleraar Jens Förster wordt teruggetrokken, omdat de data gemanipuleerd zijn. Hij is een grote naam in de sociale psychologie, veel groter dan Diederik Stapel ooit was. Deze maand zou hij een onderzoekspremie van vijf miljoen euro krijgen om aan een Duitse universiteit Humboldt-professor te worden, maar dat gaat voorlopig niet door. 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. “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. That sounds more technical than it is. Imagine comparing the heights of kids in first, second, and third grade, with the hypothesis that higher grades have taller children. The scrutinized paper has 12 studies with three conditions each. Our new analysis of excessive linearity The original report estimated a less than 1 in 179 million chance that a single paper with 12 studies would lead to such perfectly linear results. Never. A second witness. 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. As I discussed last time, the accusations present very strong evidence that there is ‘something’ wrong with the reported data in three of Förster’s papers. Specifically, that the data would be astronomically unlikely to occur, given the methods described in the papers, even under the most favorable assumptions.
The odds would be 1 in 508,000,000,000,000,000,000. 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. 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).
While at [Jacobs University]( I took two or three classes with Dr. It strikes me that something is wrong about the tone, and that the scientific community is confused about two standards that may apply here: A (quasi-criminal) prosecution of potential wrong-doing, concerned with assigning guilt and issuing consequences. For 1., we have well-established standards and procedures, epitomized by a criminal proceeding.
None of this is the case here, and Dr. 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.
Jens Förster, is anonymous and dated September 2012. A vigorous discussion of the allegations has been taking place in this Retraction Watch comment thread. The actual accusations have been less discussed, and there’s a perception that they are based on complex statistics that ordinary psychologists have no hope of understanding. Neuroskeptic - The peas! I stand corrected, it's not new. 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. 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...