
Professor's apparent request to student for fake data published by mistake - apo
http://blog.chembark.com/2013/08/06/a-disturbing-note-in-a-recent-si-file/
======
cperciva
My father -- a chemistry professor who has published in Organometallics and
worked in Zurich (where this article originated) about 35 years ago -- says he
thinks it's very likely the "make up" came from a Swiss-German speaker and
meant "put together".

It's very embarrassing that an article would get published with a clear lack
of proofreading (and presumably missing data), but based on his comments I'm
willing to hold off on suspecting fraud for now.

~~~
mikeash
That was my thought as well. Even in English, you can use "make up" to mean
"create" rather than "build something fake", as in "make up a sandwich". It's
not common usage, but it's a real thing.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
Indeed. Seems like an Americanism to use "make up" only as synonymous with
"fake."

See definition #1:
[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_up](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_up)

Around here (UK) I hear "make up" to mean "create" all the time... If it is
fake or real depends on context, and "just" isn't enough to form an opinion.

~~~
gojomo
In American dialect, at least, I can assure that the added 'up' nudges the
interpretation more towards fabrication (though not definitively so). Compare:

" _...make an elementary analysis._ " [strongly implies 'do the necessary
work']

" _...make up an elementary analysis._ " [might mean 'do the work' but has
some implicature of 'improvise from your imagination']

On the other hand, 'whip up' is merely an idiom for 'bring together quickly',
and so "...whip up an elementary analysis" would again have no implication of
faked data (as opposed to real data collected quickly).

~~~
emiliobumachar
Ah, the irony. I'm not a native English speaker, but I believe the word
"fabrication" also has a less used meaning of "made, created" with no
falsehood necessarily. A quick web search seemed to confirm this.

~~~
gojomo
Absolutely true! However the innocent-form of 'fabricate'/'fabrication' is
mostly used with involved manufacturing/assembly processes, rather than a
discovery/transcription process.

So specifically if 'fabrication' is chosen where a simpler word would do, or
chosen to contrast with a simpler word, then it acquires increasing
implication of falsified/counterfeit work.

If you (or more likely an large team/firm) can 'fabricate' a 'car', good job,
you're skilled.

If on the other hand you 'fabricate' a 'paper' or 'result' or 'fact' or
'photo' or 'logo', you're involved in something shady.

~~~
honestcoyote
Fabrication is a bit amusing.

This factory fabricates iPhones.

vs.

The fabricated iPhones came from this factory.

~~~
jholman
When physical objects are fabricated, it means they're created. "Fabricated"
never means "of fraudulent provenance", like your iPhone example.

When statements-which-purport-to-be-facts are fabricated, it means they're
falsified. So "his claim (that these phones are iPhones) was fabricated" does
mean that the phones are not truly iPhones.

As I consider it, this makes some sense; you cannot create a fact, but you can
create a physical object, and you can create a lie. Things like an analysis
are on the border. And indeed, my intuition as a native speaker accepts
"fabricate an analysis" in either sense.

~~~
gojomo
Never say never; I think most American speakers would find that the
'fabricated iPhones' noun phrase implies that the iPhones are counterfeits.
Otherwise the adjective would be awkwardly unnecessary – all iPhones are
already manufactured. So, it must be there to emphasize (or at least hint at)
the other meaning of 'fabricated'.

It's a little bit of an uncommon/sloppy usage, but still clear... more likely
to appear in impromptu speech than writing.

------
randallsquared
Is it possible that "make up" meant "put together" or "do", instead of "fake
up"?

~~~
devindotcom
This is what I thought... there are brits in the comments saying they have
used this phrase in this way many times.

That said, it is a little odd that it made it through 3 reviewers, none of
whom objected or got clarification — or if they did, it's not on the record.
(edit: which/whom)

~~~
anateus
Using the plural for "data" ( _" Where are they?"_ it says) increases the
likelihood that "make up" just means "do" in that context.

------
charris5
With over 14 years in academia in chemistry and physics labs, and in my
personal experience, European scientists speak English often with greater
precision than native US citizens. And, given my own experience in academia,
... "make up" probably meant literally "you need to 'find' the data to fit the
conclusions of this paper, ... truth be damned." Many academic PI's (lead
investigators or Professors), for many complicated reasons and under the
weight of a ridiculous feedback-loop that relentlessly increases the pressure
to publish, have abandoned what many perceive as the White Tower's pursuit of
truth in exchange for the pursuit of career. That's not to say there aren't
many noble academics pursuing the truth and publishing only verified,
repeatable findings ... it is just that they seem to be unfortunately in the
minority within the zeitgeist that presently drives the climate of our
academic research institutions. Academic research is no longer about White
Towers and truth ... Academic research has become "big business" with millions
of dollars of funding at stake. Unfortunate...sad...but tragically true.

------
auctiontheory
Scientists tend to use language in precise and idiosyncratic ways, and when
you add to that the language barrier - this seems much ado about nothing.

I remember a German colleague being reprimanded over his usage of "you people"
in a mass email - apparently it means something different and more friendly in
the German from which he mentally translated it.

------
cing
The editor of the journal has made a statement, [http://www.chemistry-
blog.com/2013/08/07/when-authors-forget...](http://www.chemistry-
blog.com/2013/08/07/when-authors-forget-to-fake-an-elemental-analysis/)

~~~
devindotcom
Doesn't add much, though:

"The author has explained to us that the statement pertains to a compound that
was ”downgraded” from something being isolated to a proposed intermediate.
Hence, we have left the ASAP manuscript on the web for now."

Did the author explain whether or not he was asking a subordinate to fabricate
data? That seems to be the more pressing issue here!

------
mbreese
Here's a comment from the PI on the paper:

[http://blog.chembark.com/2013/08/06/a-disturbing-note-in-
a-r...](http://blog.chembark.com/2013/08/06/a-disturbing-note-in-a-recent-si-
file/#comment-52180)

    
    
        Compound 14 in the SI is an intermediate and has not been
        fully characterized, hence does not have a number in the
        manuscript. Wording and numbering of the compounds in the
        supporting information are wrong (on different levels!). 
        Characterized compound 14 and 15a-c of the article correspond
        to compounds 154, 165a, 165b and 165c of the supporting info.
        
        Anything else is being dealt with by the editors of the
        journal as we speak.

------
haldujai
While this specific example may not be one of academic fraud it is important
not to underestimate the ease in fabricating data, especially if it is for a
project no one really cares about. You can't even apply the logic of 'if this
is from a respected lab it must be authentic' because papers from such labs
are rarely reviewed with care by either the editors of the journal or the PI
(the professor in charge) due to the reputation of said professor.

What I find far worse is the lack of rigor in many labs, little errors like
overgrowing your cells or incorrectly calibrating an instrument can cause
drastic phenotype changes that renders any results moot without being obvious,
no one would bothers to check that the basics of lab work are correctly
implemented. I have personally witnessed such errors, which when caught, were
not reported as an addendum. The problem with these errors is that there
exists data to back up the claims but the data is invalid, but that is
extremely hard to prove. Often when a lab with a systematic error affecting
their results is questioned they would simply repeat the experiments and send
the raw data to the investigator and that would be that.

Fabricating data on the other hand is much easier to prove as there is no
underlying true data, such as instrument measurements, and the experiment will
never be repeatable.

------
sachingulaya
Can anyone comment on how important this is to the results of the paper?

~~~
AsymetricCom
Somewhere between vital and fundamental.

~~~
rflrob
If that's the case, why is it in the Supporting Information section? In my
most recent paper, I used the SI for results that would be of interest to some
people, but do not fundamentally affect the interpretation of the data. In the
bad old days before journals were online, having a Supporting Information
section wasn't even an option---either it's in the paper, or it's not. If it
is crucial to the interpretation of the paper, it ought to be in a major
figure/table, and the reviewers ought to have asked for it to be. Otherwise,
it's position in the SI indicates to me that it's potentially useful, but not
critical.

~~~
refurb
Data is often repeated in the SI section. You put all of your data in the SI
and only put select data in the paper.

------
short_circut
I honestly can't see how this made it through the peer review process and the
editorial review process with out being noticed. Were the reviewers also not
doing their due diligence?

~~~
JohnDakota
Reviewer responsibilities are generally volunteer hours insofar as the peer
reviewing the article isn't getting paid, or compensated in any way for the
many hours/day(s) it will likely take to properly vet a piece of work.
Therefore reviewers eventually blow off some articles, choosing instead to do
a quick analysis and hope the other reviewers perform a more thorough
analysis. Apparently, in the case of this paper, all the reviewers blew off
their jobs.

------
sukaka
tl;dr, "make up" data means either put together or fake.

------
FD3SA
On the matter of the academic-industrial complex, I humbly defer to Elon Musk:
[http://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=9m31s](http://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=9m31s)

~~~
FD3SA
Due to the downvote, I'd just like to explain a bit further. Academia is
designed with very unique economics which favor publishing over useful
experimental results. As such, it can only be expected that rational actors
will game the system by fabricating data in order to publish impactful papers,
especially if the short term gains (tenure) outweigh the long term
consequences (incorrect results).

It is a classic case of improper incentives leading to undesired outcomes.

