Not sure why this post got auto-delted, but trying again without any names.
"Why I Asked the Editors of Criminology to Retract..."
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/9b2k3/
It looks like one co-author fabricated data. Another is running out of the burning building in front of his co-authors. Messy stuff. At the top crim programs and in the top crim journal, too.
This retraction memo points to several potentially serious ethical violations on part of the authorship team, but it also raises serious suspicions about the veracity of the findings in the 2015 Social Problems (2015) paper. As noted, The SP paper used the same data, similar topic. As a member of, SSP I feel the editors at Social Problems should inquire about this matter immediately!
Also, him snitching was a bad idea (although morally correct). If what happened to citation fraud guy (i.e. nothing) is any indication of the fallout from this, it'll be forgotten about by the end of the month.
Nah, if he knows that a replication is in the works, it's better to disassociate himself now rather than to try to dindu after the takedown goes into print.
I would think this is an honest mistake, except...I don't understand why Stewart or Johnson didn't do this themselves. They're full profs, and have literally nothing to lose except their reputations. The junior scholar is running as far away from this as possible, and wants it retracted. I'd be interested in hearing exactly why Stewart or Johnson doesn't think it should.
This looks bad for everyone. Stewart looks like he either did really shoddy work or, and much worse, fabricated data. Johnson is the lead author and will take a ton of flak for this. Gertz (I think) runs a center that is now being called into question. Somehow Pickett looks the worst here by trying to throw everyone under the bus before he catches any criticism.
All around bad.
How could anyone think this is an honest mistake? It's not like there's a basic stata command that duplicates each of your cases. I really don't think someone could forget about collecting a second wave of data, imputing data for nearly half of respondents, and collapsing counties together...to not mention these aspects of the research design in the article is egregious incompetence at best. Can't produce data because he saved over it??? You don't use a .do file, bro?
The craziest thing to me is that the standard errors were the same for all models. Makes you wonder if they even ran them or just fabricated everything completely.
This looks bad for everyone. Stewart looks like he either did really shoddy work or, and much worse, fabricated data. Johnson is the lead author and will take a ton of flak for this. Gertz (I think) runs a center that is now being called into question. Somehow Pickett looks the worst here by trying to throw everyone under the bus before he catches any criticism.
All around bad.
Disagree. Pickett found out he was in bed with a fabricator and is trying to get out in the most honorable way possible. How else should he have done it?
This looks bad for everyone. Stewart looks like he either did really shoddy work or, and much worse, fabricated data. Johnson is the lead author and will take a ton of flak for this. Gertz (I think) runs a center that is now being called into question. Somehow Pickett looks the worst here by trying to throw everyone under the bus before he catches any criticism.
All around bad.
Disagree. Pickett found out he was in bed with a fabricator and is trying to get out in the most honorable way possible. How else should he have done it?
It took him almost 10 years to realize this? He presumably read the other articles given it is his area of research and he just now noticed the discrepancies in sample sizes? I mean, let's be real here that he is not likely doing this for the noblest of reasons and is trying to save his own skin.