Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Study demonstrates a pattern in ‘how scientists lie about their data’
Anthony Watts / 11 hours ago November 25, 2015
From Stanford University:

Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data

When scientists falsify data, they try to cover it up by writing differently in their published works. A pair of Stanford researchers have devised a way of identifying these written clues.

BY BJORN CAREY

please log in to view this image

Andrey Popov/Shutterstock

Stanford communication scholars have devised an ‘obfuscation index’ that can help catch falsified scientific research before it is published.

Even the best poker players have “tells” that give away when they’re bluffing with a weak hand. Scientists who commit fraud have similar, but even more subtle, tells, and a pair of Stanford researchers have cracked the writing patterns of scientists who attempt to pass along falsified data.

The work, published in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology, could eventually help scientists identify falsified research before it is published.

There is a fair amount of research dedicated to understanding the ways liars lie. Studies have shown that liars generally tend to express more negative emotion terms and use fewer first-person pronouns. Fraudulent financial reports typically display higher levels of linguistic obfuscation – phrasing that is meant to distract from or conceal the fake data – than accurate reports.

To see if similar patterns exist in scientific academia, Jeff Hancock, a professor of communication at Stanford, and graduate student David Markowitz searched the archives of PubMed, a database of life sciences journals, from 1973 to 2013 for retracted papers. They identified 253, primarily from biomedical journals, that were retracted for documented fraud and compared the writing in these to unretracted papers from the same journals and publication years, and covering the same topics.

They then rated the level of fraud of each paper using a customized “obfuscation index,” which rated the degree to which the authors attempted to mask their false results. This was achieved through a summary score of causal terms, abstract language, jargon, positive emotion terms and a standardized ease of reading score.

“We believe the underlying idea behind obfuscation is to muddle the truth,” said Markowitz, the lead author on the paper. “Scientists faking data know that they are committing a misconduct and do not want to get caught. Therefore, one strategy to evade this may be to obscure parts of the paper. We suggest that language can be one of many variables to differentiate between fraudulent and genuine science.”

The results showed that fraudulent retracted papers scored significantly higher on the obfuscation index than papers retracted for other reasons. For example, fraudulent papers contained approximately 1.5 percent more jargon than unretracted papers.

“Fradulent papers had about 60 more jargon-like words per paper compared to unretracted papers,” Markowitz said. “This is a non-trivial amount.”

The researchers say that scientists might commit data fraud for a variety of reasons. Previous research points to a “publish or perish” mentality that may motivate researchers to manipulate their findings or fake studies altogether. But the change the researchers found in the writing, however, is directly related to the author’s goals of covering up lies through the manipulation of language. For instance, a fraudulent author may use fewer positive emotion terms to curb praise for the data, for fear of triggering inquiry.

In the future, a computerized system based on this work might be able to flag a submitted paper so that editors could give it a more critical review before publication, depending on the journal’s threshold for obfuscated language. But the authors warn that this approach isn’t currently feasible given the false-positive rate.

“Science fraud is of increasing concern in academia, and automatic tools for identifying fraud might be useful,” Hancock said. “But much more research is needed before considering this kind of approach. Obviously, there is a very high error rate that would need to be improved, but also science is based on trust, and introducing a ‘fraud detection’ tool into the publication process might undermine that trust.”

 

Apart from the ones where Sisu is able to use their data to support his argument, obviously they are all fine.

It also goes without saying that this study is 100% kosher

Still avoiding, Goodnight.

 

Peer review. The worlds most expensive experiment shows Einstein is correct. Talk about peer review

 

This is what we (NASA) call melting these days, my my. "greenland glacier melting rapidly they are sayng currently

please log in to view this image

This is obviously all adding to rising sea levels

 

You really shouldn't you know Exactly what did this experiment confirm, technically? seeing as you understand what you are talking about

if you fail to answer my question does that mean "you got smashed"?

I dont read 90% of what you post, 50% of what Tobes posts and 99% of what triffic posts, that's the cack ratios, with 94.3% certainty

 

Could you please tell me what is "cack" about asking you to explain the cycle that you claim a reconstruction shows we are in. Whilst you are at it you could also actually answer the question rather than just deflect yet again.

Cheerybye!

 

I guess this is one of those 99% times

 

That's fine, we all try to avoid things we find difficult its part of human nature. I have to say I dont know why that question should cause you so much difficulty but hey ho at least we all know where you stand re difficult questions.

 

99% again, damn.

 

That's sea ice though

#fail

 

For someone who is supposedly a 'truth seeker' you're not very good at actually answering any questions about the supposed 'truth' you're peddling are you?

You avoid answering straightforward questions and then proclaim you're doing so because they're 'cack'. Brilliant debating there.....

You don't bother reading information sources provided to you, based solely on who's posted them. Not much of an objective 'truth seeker' are you mate?

 

Tobes I tuned you out when you said prove the glaciers are not adding to sea level and I did and you slithered towards computer models (although you didn't even realise that) and future predictions of permafrost, when we were talking about what the "glaciers" ARE doing.

It's literally too much work explaining everything to you same three and the ridiculous quest to "prove me wrong" ye are on.
Yards of evidence from credible sources and you give me one link you didn't even understand yourself and hardly read, scanned it for what you wanted. One point, not even relevant to what you were asking.

reminds of of your whole Suarez fee will plummet and he will be a problem for the team. All based on nothing but your opinion but you argued it for a ****in week, and the exact opposite happened, the ****ing Market price crap you tried to defend for days, a nonsense argument and you argued that **** for 4 days or something!

Embarrassment, dabbling in conspiracy theory is nothing like being wrong and spending 4 days denying it with pseudo logic

 

Seeing as someone likes Glaciers.

Some old News Papers, this is but a scraping of what can be shown from old news papers online

1902 Alps glacier shunk several thousand feet in 20 years
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/138260577

28 sep 1910 Greenland glacier retreated 4 miles since 1850, glaciers around the world retreating
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/100784966

21 July 1932, A warmer world - Arctic Barrier wall receded 30 miles since it was first surveyed..
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667

 

hahaha, do you think by repeating the same untruth often enough it'll somehow make it right?

As you did nothing of the sort, in fact the complete converse is the reality.

I'd already posted a detailed study on the ACTUAL measurements relating to glacial melt. You then returned with a graph that showed the ACTUAL current loss, combined with a modeled ice gain for 2090-99, which you first proclaimed as a 'win' and then when I pointed out the ultimate conclusion of the same article, you came back laughing that the conclusion was based on a prediction and not reality. When I then pointed out that the actual graph that you'd cut and pasted from the piece was also merely a prediction, you ****ed off and moved on to Prince Charles, as you'd patently not read the graph data information in your haste for a supposed 'victory' In addition, the ultimate conclusion of the piece you posted was that in the 21st Century, glacial melt would add 5mm to sea levels anyway, so it was a double egg on face moment for you.

You then have the temerity (and total delusion level) to say that "it's too much work explaining it" to the likes of PJ,s TT and me, as if you're on some sort of superior intellectual level.

What a crock of ****. You didn't even understand the detail of the information you posted yourself in order to try and prove your ****ing point and admitted to not even reading the information I gave you, which you then belittled without having done so. You're now trying to move on to deflect with a nonsense comparison with market pricing (another concept you patently couldn't allow to permeate your child like bonce).

Go give the bog a polish.

 

...and your point is?

There's been studies into the impact of man on glacial melt since the mid 19thC and present day, in the overall timeframe the impact of man was estimated at circa 25% of the total loss. However, in the last 25 years the impact was estimated to have increased to 69% of the total cause.

 

omg you actually managed to cococt a reply for once Started off with a lie, and well, I am sure it diverged even further from reality from that point on, I didn't bother.

I wont even bother getting the quotes and where exactly you switched your argument.

Sadly you cant tell the difference between measurement, historical record and future "predictions".

If you actually have any point to make lets have it now, dont blather on about anything, I obviously missed some really important relevant point you made and for that I apoligise sincerely.. please pretty please report ?

 

I see you have done some 3 minute crash courses.


...and your point is?
Well, you said 80% the glaciers are in retreat (in he contex of defending the global warming scam) meaning you are saying man is responsible for said glacier melt, as you obviously disagree with my view, though mine is supported by actual factual measurements.

"There's been studies into the impact of man on glacial melt since the mid 19thC and present day, in the overall timeframe the impact of man was estimated at circa 25% of the total loss. However, in the last 25 years the impact was estimated to have increased to 69% of the total cause"

Citation needed, you could have read that on the Guardian or Skeptical science. Plus actual reporting at the time is more relevent that a study for specific regions and averaged, that are poster boys for global warming namely

The Himilayas
The arctic
Greenland
Antarctica

Antarctica being the big on obviously because that's where all the ice is. That is why I post about the relevant glaciers and cold spots

Do you understand the relevance of Greenland in all of this?
Source for that study?

 

Says melting now is man made
reads(doesnt read) my news articles showing more severe melt before man made possible..
says "whats your pont"

Why do I bother

 

Pull the right levers and you can make people go read climate studies

 

It's not really peer review though is it? After a theory has been put out there, it's past the review stage.

Science has been and will continue to test Einstein's theory of general relativity hoping to disprove it. I agree with you that it will stand the test of time, in fact all the tests so far have only shown how right he was. More tests under way looking for gravitational waves, whether they find them or not won't affect the Theory. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34815668