Median Watch

Eyes on statistics

Testing baseline tables in trials for signs of fraud

When fraudsters make up research data, they can make mistakes. Real data is rich and complex whilst fraudsters are on a get-rich-quick scheme and make slapdash errors. One mistake they make is in randomised trials, where it’s standard to have a baseline table that compares the randomised groups. As the groups are randomised, the summary statistics should be similar. Fraudsters have no sense of ‘similar’ and so have created data where the groups are nearly identical.

Painting a picture of research fraud

Originally published in the Deeble and AusHSI newsletter. Vincent van Gogh only sold a few paintings during his lifetime and died a poor man. After he died, his sister-in-law, Johanna van Gogh-Bonger, cleverly built his reputation and created a thriving market for his paintings. Recent sales have been over USD $80 million. Vincent was both truly gifted and desperately unlucky. Soon after his paintings started to sell, van Gogh was the victim of fraud.

Scientific fraud is rising, and automated systems won’t stop it. We need research detectives

Reposted from The Conversation. Fraud in science is alarmingly common. Sometimes researchers lie about results and invent data to win funding and prestige. Other times, researchers might pay to stage and publish entirely bogus studies to win an undeserved pay rise – fuelling a “paper mill” industry worth an estimated €1 billion a year. Some of this rubbish can be easily spotted by peer reviewers, but the peer review system has become badly stretched by ever-rising paper numbers.