

Science Fraud Site Owner Suspends Site in Response to Legal Threats - tokenadult
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/owner-of-science-fraud-site-suspended-for-legal-threats-identifies-himself-talks-about-next-steps/

======
jacquesm
The problem is that they took it upon themselves to be judges, jury _and_
executioner. If all they did was point out the potential mistakes under a less
judgemental name they'd have been fine.

It looks like their plan for the future is a re-launch doing just that so
let's see what they come up with.

Saying something is fraudulent is libelous, saying you think something is a
mistake is just about as bad in the scientific world (the research is just as
invalid) but does not carry with it a sense of judgement. Who knows whether
something was a mistake or outright fraud, sometimes it is hard to tell the
difference (see the certificate matter on the homepage right now).

Do not attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence works just
as well in the scientific world. Having to retract a paper is no fun at all.

~~~
uvdiv
_Saying something is fraudulent is libelous,_

It's not libelous, unless you're referring to legal definitions in specific
repressive countries (such as the UK). Libel is a malicious lie. This is
someone speaking their conscience.

~~~
danso
"Libel is a malicious lie."

There are other issues about your comment, but I'll start with just pointing
out that your assertion here is false. A statement can be considered libel if
gross negligence was involved, not just malice.

------
nodata
In a similar vein: Ben Goldacre: What doctors don't know about the drugs they
prescribe

www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html

The talk focuses on how peer reviewed journals provenly publish the positive
test results, and not the negative results. He gives the example of Tamiflu,
where the 50/50 split between actual positive/negative tests was not reflected
in the journals at all - anyone reading the journals would get a remarkably
positive view of the drug.

~~~
xbryanx
His blog is a regularly enjoyable read on these issues:
<http://www.badscience.net/>

------
joshuaheard
In the future, use conditional language: "it may be fraud", or "appears to be
fraud". In fact, I would avoid the use of the word "fraud" and say "factually
inaccurate" or "wrong".

~~~
quinque
Which on the other hand means -- instead of black we better say gray or darker
white. I don't think your position is factually accurate. Since there are
words for it -- use them. Not right means wrong.

~~~
rayiner
It's more like calling someone a whore versus calling them a prostitute. It's
not less black, it's less specific.

"Fraud" is a specific legal conclusion that requires a certain state of mind.
Someone just reviewing a paper isn't in a a place to level the highly specific
term "fraud" versus the more general term "error" because he doesn't have any
evidence about the author's state of mind.

~~~
quinque
I do believe that the usage of certain type of language depends from the place
and the time. So from my point of view, it's one thing using "fraud" in
scientific paper and completely different story using in a community platform.
Should I write on my web site, just like I would talk in the court?

~~~
rayiner
Its the not because its a legal term, its because its a highly specific term.
You can freely call someone a whore. If you call them a prostitute, you had
better have some evidence that they actually trade sex for money.

------
ams6110
Isn't the need for a site like this suggesting that "peer review" is not
working anymore for some reason? Why is that?

~~~
tzs
Scientific fraud is usually in things that aren't normally checked by peer
review. For instance, suppose someone writes a fraudulent paper showing that
broccoli leads to homosexuality.

The peer reviewers will be looking at the design of his experiment--could it
actually show such a link, and does it control for other factors that might
explain the result? Does the paper give enough detail for others to repeat the
experiment? Is the analysis of the data sound statistically? Is the work
original? Is it citing appropriate prior researchers?

Even in a fraudulent paper, those aspects of the paper should be OK. The fraud
will generally be in lying about the results of running the experiment, which
is beyond the scope of peer review.

Where that gets caught is after the paper is published, and other researchers
try to replicate it and get different results.

------
danso
Having spent some time reading what's left of his blog and how he carried
himself while anonymous, this is a really interesting case of how a do-gooder
can get in way over his head, partly from drinking his own Kool Aid

