Live data from Hacker News

Please commit more blatant academic fraud

jacobbuckman.com

221–230 of 365 posts

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#221
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed it was tongue in cheek, but the end of the article really convinced me that the author is serious about his ‘let it get worse so it can get better proposal’ stance. “Widespread fraud would force us to re-strengthen our community’s academic norms, transforming the way we do research, and improving our collective ability to progress humanity’s knowledge. “So this is a call to action: please commit more academ…

Author here -- it's intended as satire, don't worry, haha. I know that nobody would ever actually do this so I decided to just lean into it. If I had any real power by which to fix things, I would have a much more nuanced take.

> I know that nobody would ever actually do this

Or would they?

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#222
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With laws, there are full time police officers, investigators, and prosecutors working to catch people. And even then, most crimes go unsolved and unpunished. Even without the complicity, stopping fraud and bad behavior is a difficult problem. Part time reviewers and reputation seem woefully insufficient counters.

That would be interesting, if universities had full time academic integrity officers whose job was to detect academic fraud.

I don't think people understand how hard this would be, or how much it would impede science. To give an analogy to coding: imagine a company with thousands of programmers, all using different languages and writing different types of code (mobile apps, back-end server apps, mainframe code, device firmware). Now assign one or two poorly-paid employees whose job is to review all of their code and find issues with it.

Can you imagine how annoying this would be? How much time you would spend simply explaining to these people what your code does, so they could understand the basics of what your program is even doing? How ineffective they would be at detecting actual fraud, and how quickly their processes would turn into yet another annoying layer of bureaucracy and checklist compliance?

There are a lot of things Universities could do to assist scientists in producing better output. This is not one of them.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is saying that all of the papers are bullshit, garbage, and a waste of time. He is saying that everyone is turning a blind eye to this. He is saying that now that the fraud has got this bad, it is out in the open, and people will be forced to deal with the fact that the entire field is filled with garbage.

That's right. Btw, I think the author is wrong. This is not "out in the open" now. It's been "out in the open" since for ever. And those who act all surprised about it are probably the ones who knew it better than most. I don't mean the author, of course, but he is pointing to some of his own papers as bullshit. Why did he publish bullshit papers if he knew they were bullshit? Or doese he mean those papers are bullsh…

When I published those papers, I was new to the field. I was guided by the standards set by the community, by my mentors, by my peers. I was proud of each of those papers. At publication time, I believed I was doing good science, and the belief was re-affirmed by acceptance at top conferences.

My thinking has evolved since then. The community norms have not.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#224

The level of academic unhappiness with publishing and its surrounds is actually surprising to me. First, I never hear the counterargument.. that current publishing is OK. Does it exist, or is everyone unhappy while nothing changes? Second, I'm surprised at how much of a single institution academia seems to be. "Publish or Perish," for example, has to be supported by tenure committees, grant makers and such. Are they…

The fundamental problem is that there isn't enough money in the system and there aren't enough professorships for the legions of PhD students that exist. We either need to cap the number of PhD students much more aggressively or we need to spool up many more institutes and increase funding dramatically. If you set the bar for tenure at people who are publishing in Nature or Science or prestigious journal X then people will just come up with ways to game that too.

The other thing that goes unsaid is that huge swaths of researchers in the US are immigrants on visas. If they cannot find that next postdoc they will be kicked out of the country. This creates a massive incentive to do whatever you need to do to get your next opportunity.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#225
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is difficult to distinguish genuine romantic feelings between two people, from the case of a superior using their position to get their genitals wet and a subordinate capitulating for fear of losing their job. Since feelings are only a biological impulse, and we humans frequently suppress our impulses in the form of self control, it's much easier to look for that oxytocin fix in a more appropriate arena. The milit…

It's difficult to distinguish genuine romantic feelings from exploitative lust everywhere. It's a constant of human experience and has very little to do with power dynamics.

>It's difficult to distinguish genuine romantic feelings from exploitative lust everywhere.

Huh?

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in other words, there really is not any "publish or perish" in academia. It's simply that to outcompete your fellow graduate students in getting a top job in industry (or a tenured position in academia) you need to have the most publications with the most "novelty". And that can be justified at any cost. So, is this, at the end of the day, that the ratio of students willing to study graduate level studies, and jo…

As long as there's a possibility of making more money by lying and cheating, people will lie and cheat. Especially when it's a lot more money. But I don't think there's any unemployment danger among CS PhD's to worry about. Unless they somehow managed to avoid learning how to use any tools or technologies of value to anyone. PhD's do not have to be at academia or a "top job" to be employed in a research or at least R…

> But I don't think there's any unemployment danger among CS PhD's to worry about

This is why my comment specifically addressed top positions and tenured positions i.e., a position with a specific world-renown research group. Competition for the positions that putting all that time and effort into a PhD would be for.

> employed in a research or at least R&D capacity.

Sure, jobs exist. I am not seeing where I denied this fact anywhere.

> tenured positions do not pay eye-watering salaries

Tenure is what I am specifically referring too. It's a form of intellectual and economic freedom.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#227
There's a lot of discussion here about changing the incentive structure of academia to prevent this kind of fraud, but based on the discussion I've read so far I don't think a lot of people here understand the exact incentives that are involved, so I'd like to try to explain how academics actually operate.

We've all head of "publish or perish", and there is a general understanding that you have to publish papers to get tenure, so that's where the incentive is. But it's a little more complicated than that.

When you are hired as a tenure-track assistant professor at a university, you're given what's called a "startup" package. Assistant professors are essentially startup founders where their company is a lab. Your job as an assistant professor is to use that money to purchase equipment and to recruit PhD students (aka employees) so that you can launch your research agenda. This money pays for:

- rent taken off the top (essentially paying for your lab space and other costs the University incurs)

- a portion of your own salary

- your students' tuition

- your students' stipends

- conference travel and fees

- lab equipment (computers, desks, chairs, machinery, scientific apparatuses). To note here, for every dollar you spend on equipment, the University takes a percentage of that. So if I buy a chair for $100, the University will charge for example $10. This is a sort of tax for being affiliated with the University and getting free use of their resources (internet, libraries, subscriptions, etc.).

- As well as other things.

Crucially, this money is not free. The expectation is that you will in the next 6 or so years use that money to jumpstart a successful lab operation. A "successful" lab is one that is able to procure significant funding from government and institutional sources. Your first goal is to procure enough funding to recoup the initial startup package the University laid out. That's your bare minimum. Ideally, you want to procure funding far in excess of this by the time you're up for tenure, to prove to the University that your lab will bring in more dollars. Because you've got to earn your keep.

Notice there hasn't been much discussion of papers so far. The initial startup package can be quite significant -- on the order of millions of dollars depending on the research agenda. As an assistant professor, you need to bring in millions of dollars from funding agencies like the NSF to make that back in multiples. But the NSF budget was only $8 billion dollars in 2020, and they need to spread that money around to new assistant professors across the entire country. Therefore, funding rates usually range from 10-20% for a proposal, which is quite low when your entire future is depending on it.

This is where "publish or perish" comes in. When you are up for tenure, yes they'll be looking at the quantity and quality of your publications. However, you could have 1000 high quality publications, but if you don't bring in significant grant money, you will not be getting tenure. The way you get that grant money is by writing a good research grant proposal, and the way you back up and bolster those proposals is through publications.

This is why there is so much fraud in publications. Not getting tenure at this stage means your research career is essentially over. You are as good as fired from your current role, and few Universities will take you on as a tenure track professor when you've already failed at your current institution. At this point you're in your mid to late 30s, and your best years (in terms of research ideas) are already behind you. It's time to enter industry or become a lecturer.

So how to fix this?

1. More research funding for government agencies. Higher funding rates means less incentive to commit fraud.

2. A feedback loop of profits from industry to universities. Right now when technological advancements happen at universities, those flow out to the general public, then to companies, who figure out how to monetize them. The profits generated by that monetization are captured entirely by private corporations, even though the foundational innovations on which they are based are funded by Universities and by extension the public. If some of this profit were diverted back into Universities (maybe through increased corporate taxes), then this would help.

3. Lessen the incentive for Universities to essentially become hedge funds with schools attached. My University is currently sitting on a billion dollars that is locked up in investments. Harvard's endowment is currently 40 billion dollars. They could fund the entire country's research agenda 5x over with that. Yet professors are paying their own salaries with public money? And the University gets a cut? This is insane.

4. Offer an alternative off-ramp for academics who don't get tenure. If not getting tenure won't end your career you've spent your entire life building, then the incentive to commit fraud would be lessened as well.

Anyway, tldr; there's not enough money to go around, so fraud exists.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#228
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in other words, there really is not any "publish or perish" in academia. It's simply that to outcompete your fellow graduate students in getting a top job in industry (or a tenured position in academia) you need to have the most publications with the most "novelty". And that can be justified at any cost. So, is this, at the end of the day, that the ratio of students willing to study graduate level studies, and jo…

The AMA artificially restricts the supply of doctors through their licensing monopoly, in order to keep salaries high. This is bad and shouldn't be emulated in other industries.

Would there be enough people willing to go into Medical School debt without a high salary on the other end?

The entire point of game theory is to align incentives. It is not to simply paint pictures of ideals and deny that humans are human.

I understand that the AMA has incentives that are not nearly as noble as simply ensuring the world has a steady stream of doctors. Nonetheless, the answer is not to simply say "the AMA has some impure incentives" as an actual dismissal of a different argument.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FUnny you leave out the part where he also said if you criticize a woman in the lab they cry... He made a terribly misogynistic "joke" and paid the consequences for it. You'd think someone with a Nobel prize wouldn't be so clueless

> FUnny you leave out the part where he also said if you criticize a woman in the lab they cry... Do you think women in the lab, when criticized, are more likely, less likely, or equally likely to cry? Is the scientist’s comment mean spirited, or sexist, or just an observation? I think it’s important to consider what the intent behind these jokes are. The Wikipedia article calls out statements from 29 other scientist…

The rule is really simple: it makes people uncomfortable when you make generalizations about natural traits shared by the group they're in. Period. All groups (even groups people feel proud to be a part of), and all generalizations, even ones that sound positive or don't apply to the listener. I'm not going to list examples but if you're having a hard time thinking of them just imagine overhearing a conversation at a coffee shop about "those , they're always ."

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#230
post #158

In undergrad, my professor explained to me in very candid terms (from the position of being a generous mentor) that the optimal path to success in the Arts and Social Sciences is: 1. Find a niche only a couple of people operate in. 2. Make friends with them at all costs and work in their area. 3. Review each others work, amassing enormous citations in highly respected (albeit sometimes niche) journals.

I saw something similar in an academic's blogged advice ten or fifteen ago: "At graduate level, you should cultivate [peers and a concentration] such that your intellectual correspondence is publishable." I took that as plausible enough at the time to mention the advice once to a graduate student in philosophy. I did not take it at the time as immediately translatable into a [simply translated?] phrase I have heard s…

> When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. - Goodhart's Law

> The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor. - Campbell's Law

This is just another proof that you can't trust metrics. Build up a network of people that you can hold personally responsible for, and if any of them ever recommends low quality work then let them go. Let that network know whenever you discover a network of individuals who put out low effort work so that you and your network can disregard the entire network.

Bottom up, not top down. Do not rely on citation count. Do not rely on views. Do not rely on upvotes or reviews from people you do not know. Do not rely on if they went to a prestigious university. Do not rely on the ability to pass a standardized test.

Post reply on HN