Also, IMO, much more interesting intellectually to work on. The Bak-Coleman/Devezer critique of the Protzko et al piece is a good ex. They really wanted to say "the design is bad & the estimator can't yield the estimand" -- but had to do a bunch of tedious work bc all ppl cared about was cheating

Bingo!!!

I continue to believe that the poor overall quality of research produced by honest actors is a much, much bigger and insidious problem than outright academic fraud. And that includes poor quality research done to advance narratives about fraud.

Very same!

Yom's clarinet music. Try The Old Man or Rêve de l'Enfant for example.

I think that's definitely discipline specific. In some fields there's no habit of thinking things through and it's not taught. It's an age old problem that scientists go to statisticians for a post mortem for ex. Others do things differently because the nature of the study demands careful planning.

As @joachim.cidlab.com says, perhaps what we need isn't science police but science social workers.

I am disappointed by the fact that so many seem tempted to share a "nonrigorous", unserious attempt at quantifying fraud in science because it passes some silly vibe check ("I asked others and they agree"). So in the name of good science, we're ready to produce bad science as a rhetorical tool.

scientist. It'll just hold progress back and make people miserable. If there's no good faith in the system and everyone's treated like a potential criminal, that's the kind of selection pressure that'll change the nature of science as a community.

increasingly enhance the severity of the measures to control every new kind of violation. This means burying more and more funds into fraud control, it means more rules, more sanctions, more rigidity, less room for scientific autonomy and creativity. Ultimately won't be good for science or the