has John Smith's identity been revealed?
Co-author requests retraction from top crim journal
-
i bet it's someone obscure and deadweight or grad student, with time on his hands.
who still, by exposing a fraud, has done much more for the discipline than you ever will...It will not turn out to be an obscure person, grad student, or similar.
But also, this is not some big savior event for the discipline. If it turns out to be fraud (likely), it is good it was exposed. That doesn’t make this a signal event for the field or make John Smith a hero. Good for John, I’m glad he did it, he provided a service, but let’s not get carried away.
-
i bet it's someone obscure and deadweight or grad student, with time on his hands.
who still, by exposing a fraud, has done much more for the discipline than you ever will...
It will not turn out to be an obscure person, grad student, or similar.
But also, this is not some big savior event for the discipline. If it turns out to be fraud (likely), it is good it was exposed. That doesn�t make this a signal event for the field or make John Smith a hero. Good for John, I�m glad he did it, he provided a service, but let�s not get carried away.The post above you answered the question. Keep speculating that it is some who has faculty obligations though. You're gonna do great in this business.
-
The post above you answered the question. Keep speculating that it is some who has faculty obligations though. You're gonna do great in this business.
The post above is incorrect. From the CHE piece:
"Before “John Smith” — whoever he was — had sent an email to the co-authors on those five papers, he had contacted Nick Brown and James Heathers, two researchers known for ferreting out and exposing scientific misconduct. Brown and Heathers have scrutinized papers for evidence that the results have been massaged or outright faked. They’ve also written software programs that can detect when certain results are unlikely or statistically impossible. Heathers and Brown, along with a small band of analytically inclined compatriots, have sometimes been referred to as “data thugs” for their efforts to push for more rigor in social science and their willingness to call out shoddy research."
"As they’ve done in other cases, Heathers and Brown combed through the data that “John Smith” emailed them in February. (In an interview, Brown wouldn’t answer questions about the identity of “Smith,” though both Heathers and Brown say it’s not them. As Heathers puts it, “We do everything under our own names — always have, and have in this case.”)" -
Why are you so angry and personal? Is this how you act in public?
i bet it's someone obscure and deadweight or grad student, with time on his hands.
who still, by exposing a fraud, has done much more for the discipline than you ever will...
It will not turn out to be an obscure person, grad student, or similar.
But also, this is not some big savior event for the discipline. If it turns out to be fraud (likely), it is good it was exposed. That doesn?t make this a signal event for the field or make John Smith a hero. Good for John, I?m glad he did it, he provided a service, but let?s not get carried away.
The post above you answered the question. Keep speculating that it is some who has faculty obligations though. You're gonna do great in this business. -
i bet it's someone obscure and deadweight or grad student, with time on his hands.
who still, by exposing a fraud, has done much more for the discipline than you ever will...Oh honey, calm yourself. Why the aggression? When I said it was someone obscure and deadweight, or maybe a grad student, what I meant was that the boring "elitists" on this site assume it must have been Bruce Western or __[insert favorite professor at UMD, Albany, or Cincy]___ because who else could do something so miraculous. But no, I bet it was someone you've never heard of, because many obscure deadweights you have never heard of are actually very smart and better at statistics than most sociologists and criminologists.
For example I can think of one really smart guy I know, who's at a directional who I could see writing this. He didn't get a job at Maryland, so he recalibrated his career goals and cruises through his job, focusing on helping out his students and doing his own quirky research (most not published in academic journals). He's very smart, though, kind of antagonistic to delusionally pompous blowhards like you, and he could easily have written these critiques.
-
My further reasoning for thinking it's probably not someone swimming in elite circles (or at least not yet if they were a student) is that elitists tend to be acculturated into the rules of the game. And this undertaking was at least somewhat time intensive, so it required a lot of motivation to write it all up.
What would motivate that level of effort? One possibility would be a kind of aspie compulsion to correct errors. Another would be an obscure "failure"'s resentment of elite "successes" who rest on a house of cards ie data fraud. Another would be youthful idealism that has not yet been thwarted by the realities of this sick sad world.
-
why would they spend SO much time on it, though? this must have taken quite a lot of time to write and follow up. people who are super successful tend to be very busy with their own work and, more fundamentally, very ego-driven, racking up achievements. this time-consuming endeavor gave them no personal benefit. whoever it is, it was someone with time on their hands, and with a strong motivation to spend their precious free time on this anonymous endeavor. is caring about the truth enough motivation for most highly successful people to devote a week of their precious time to something that doesn't even give them any reputational benefit?
maybe you're right. i think my more cynical view of successful people is more likely to be borne out. time will tell.
-
Hey DE1F. I agree with much of what you are saying (though not necessarily your characterization of the motivation of certain types of scholars). I think, though, you could be incorrect about Jawn Smith not getting any benefit from this. There are ways one could benefit or satisfaction from this takedown both now while the person remains anonymous and in the future if and when her or his identity is revealed.
Separately, one of the things I do agree with you about is the silly aggression of the person you are responding to. There do seem to be people here with agendas and their aggression to reasonable discussion sticks out.
-
why would they spend SO much time on it, though? this must have taken quite a lot of time to write and follow up. people who are super successful tend to be very busy with their own work and, more fundamentally, very ego-driven, racking up achievements. this time-consuming endeavor gave them no personal benefit. whoever it is, it was someone with time on their hands, and with a strong motivation to spend their precious free time on this anonymous endeavor. is caring about the truth enough motivation for most highly successful people to devote a week of their precious time to something that doesn't even give them any reputational benefit?
maybe you're right. i think my more cynical view of successful people is more likely to be borne out. time will tell.Some of us just like to solve puzzles and sleuth out crimes. It’s a gas to uncover this kind of thing. I did it once early in my career. You make enemies, but it’s still fun.