The quotes in this article from the editor of Criminology are astonishing. (NB this isn't a matter of replication, or correcting errors in data analysis, but rather a question of establishing whether a series of papers have made-up results.)
You are not going to believe what you're about to read. Wait until you get to the editor's remarks. You'll see.
In ’s keynote at NAS meeting, she calls out this story and the Criminology Editor’s quotes as a troubling example of failures of research integrity that could have consequences for an entire field’s reputation.
Still in amazement at the editor-in-chief of a field-leading journal who responds to possible fabrication by saying dismissively, "This is not the first time that papers were published in the journal that were complete gibberish."
This link seems to avoid the paywall
I realise I'm late to this, but what an amazing story, featuring possible scientific fraud, old friendships destroyed by dodgy data, and the totally clueless editor-in-chief of a major scientific publication:
When I encouraged the journal #Criminology to conduct a transparent 3rd party investigation of the Pickett-Stewart matter, my goal was to help save from this kind of embarrassment.
So far this story has been called “bonkers,” “a doozy,” and “crazy-ass.” I still think “Man what a shitshow” sums it up best.
A bitter dispute between a professor and his mentor has fractured a friendship and divided the field of criminology.
A professor accuses his advisor of falsifying data & can’t get access to the original data from a study he co-authored; journal editor admits false papers have been quietly dealt with in past & doesn’t want to even acknowledge retraction as a possibility
Trouble brewing in criminology
Criminologists making headlines in the Chronicle, but not for the best reasons. Thought-provoking article about the ethics of publishing, data use, and making right on past mistakes.
Allegations of research misconduct result in backlash against whistle-blowers, an editor saying "so what, we know other articles are also gibberish," cops called & ASC doing nothing. It is a sh*tshow.
Sounds like psychology five years ago.
This is a disgrace. David McDowall should be fired as editor of Criminology. Also, some sociologists have said we don't need transparency policies in our journals because we haven't had a scandal like this. Don't wait.
Article itself is paywalled (should I subscribe to CHE?), but this is really something. Pickett wants to retract a paper he’s co-author on, outlining many errors, and the editor seems to basically tell him to stop being such a meanie to his co-authors.
“I don’t even quite know what a retraction is.” “I think [Pickett] doesn’t like Eric personally and wants to ruin him and make him lose his job.” -David McDowall, editor in chief of Criminology, on strong evidence of fraud uncovered by Pickett
The most accurate description of this situation comes from a quote in the story: "Man, what a shitshow." A shitshow, indeed
Various folks I admire and respect have published in Criminology, but, man, the quotes from the journal's editor in this Chronicle piece.
I know scientists are only human (being in academia dissuades one of any idealisation of those who are well credentialed: not least through being a credentialed person!) but some responses to serious worries about fraud here are just so disappointing.
I think we're actually doing this RIGHT NOW-->“I think in 15 years we’re going to look back and say, ‘I can’t believe that this happened.’” via