Reading this, I find myself thinking about something not yet explored in the OP, namely, if the insinuations of the OP are proven [that Yang fabricated or distorted the evidence - and when a fellow researcher asks to see the evidence but the request is refused things do start to look a bit suspicious] then what were the motives for Yang claiming that this was valid research?
Could he have some form of personal and negative experience relating to video game violence? Could it be that he wanted recognition for something, decided he needed a headline-grabbing thesis and then fabricated evidence? Could it be somewhat less ruthless but maybe a little self-serving: was he researching as part of a further academic qualification and needed to generate some actual research and thesis as part of that process?
Beyond this somewhat invasive and almost voyeuristic curiosity about the psyche of someone, if as alleged has basically falsified this research... the next obvious question would be to ask if there are any lessons that can be learned from this? Two possible areas to consider for that would be: are there any useful techniques [beyond the obvious of looking at the data] to help detect fabricated research? Maybe exploration of the developmental timeline of the paper? Did evidence suddenly appear in significant bulk? We’re there claims being made without evidence of research being done? But then, beyond that, maybe a second look at the motivations of the individual to take this approach to their work? What prompted them to go this route? Was there one thing that ‘pushed them over the edge’, or was it part of a broader plan with deliberate intent? Was it a sudden, shocking realisation that a hoped-for approach was doomed to failure, leading to desperation... or was it cold, ruthless calculus?
From time to time we get stories reported in the technology press about the almost farcical conduct of publishing scientific papers. We learn about companies that accept papers for publication which are utter garbage, discovering in the process that these businesses care only about the revenue they can generate. We hear about other companies that strike deals with universities to put their research behind paywalls, even though in some cases I believe the research is publicly funded. If you take all these things together you can come away with the impression that there is something increasingly corrupt and ugly taking place in further education. A general field in which integrity and honour were watch-words has become completely corrupted over time. Which in turn makes it harder for the genuine researcher, since now they have to fight against this headwind of negative perception.
I do hope there is a follow-up here. If as suggested there is some disreputable work at hand, then a better understanding of how it came about might help us spot and prevent it in future.
And it's a pretty obvious one given that he lives in a Communist dictatorship - politics. The CCP decides violent games and movies are bad, so they found a researcher and told him to write papers to justify their decision. The Party is always right, so it's the job of scientists to prove it. It is an inevitable result of Totalitarian systems like Communism/Socialism. In order to justify its total authority over everything, the Party promotes a facade of infallibility through any means available. Lysenk
But it opens the door to a couple of extra questions... First: how did this become more widely accepted if it was being pushed by the local regime? Second: isn't there a better way to be able to judge a paper by the quality of the peer review process?
Entirely happy to accept the premise of your reply, but doesn't that make it "shame on us" for glibly accepting the assertions when requests for the actual evidence were rejected?
Absolutely shame on us for accepting bad science. Shame on the American researcher who put their name on a paper after not seeing the raw data.
It probably gained the traction it did for the same reason the Chinese regime pushed it - people wanted it to be true. Good ol' confirmation bias.
We should be very suspicious of Chinese research. It should not be trusted. Communists don't see science as a way of building knowledge, but as no more than a tool for enforcing their will. The results will alway
> are there any useful techniques [beyond the obvious of looking at the data] to help detect fabricated research?
No. You have to look at the data. There's no way around it. Was that even a question?
> A general field in which integrity and honour were watch-words has become completely corrupted over time.
It was always utterly corrupt.
A lot of silly theories and experiments from the past (psychoanalysis, racism, vitalism, rat park, etc) hadn't become famous because the evidence was compelling or the pe
You can not get anything worthwhile done without raising a sweat.
-- The First Law Of Thermodynamics
Another Research Paper Required (Score:3)
Reading this, I find myself thinking about something not yet explored in the OP, namely, if the insinuations of the OP are proven [that Yang fabricated or distorted the evidence - and when a fellow researcher asks to see the evidence but the request is refused things do start to look a bit suspicious] then what were the motives for Yang claiming that this was valid research?
Could he have some form of personal and negative experience relating to video game violence? Could it be that he wanted recognition for something, decided he needed a headline-grabbing thesis and then fabricated evidence? Could it be somewhat less ruthless but maybe a little self-serving: was he researching as part of a further academic qualification and needed to generate some actual research and thesis as part of that process?
Beyond this somewhat invasive and almost voyeuristic curiosity about the psyche of someone, if as alleged has basically falsified this research... the next obvious question would be to ask if there are any lessons that can be learned from this? Two possible areas to consider for that would be: are there any useful techniques [beyond the obvious of looking at the data] to help detect fabricated research? Maybe exploration of the developmental timeline of the paper? Did evidence suddenly appear in significant bulk? We’re there claims being made without evidence of research being done? But then, beyond that, maybe a second look at the motivations of the individual to take this approach to their work? What prompted them to go this route? Was there one thing that ‘pushed them over the edge’, or was it part of a broader plan with deliberate intent? Was it a sudden, shocking realisation that a hoped-for approach was doomed to failure, leading to desperation... or was it cold, ruthless calculus?
From time to time we get stories reported in the technology press about the almost farcical conduct of publishing scientific papers. We learn about companies that accept papers for publication which are utter garbage, discovering in the process that these businesses care only about the revenue they can generate. We hear about other companies that strike deals with universities to put their research behind paywalls, even though in some cases I believe the research is publicly funded. If you take all these things together you can come away with the impression that there is something increasingly corrupt and ugly taking place in further education. A general field in which integrity and honour were watch-words has become completely corrupted over time. Which in turn makes it harder for the genuine researcher, since now they have to fight against this headwind of negative perception.
I do hope there is a follow-up here. If as suggested there is some disreputable work at hand, then a better understanding of how it came about might help us spot and prevent it in future.
Re: (Score:3)
"Publish or die"? Also, controversial results more likely to be published.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a possible motive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it opens the door to a couple of extra questions... First: how did this become more widely accepted if it was being pushed by the local regime? Second: isn't there a better way to be able to judge a paper by the quality of the peer review process?
Entirely happy to accept the premise of your reply, but doesn't that make it "shame on us" for glibly accepting the assertions when requests for the actual evidence were rejected?
Oh, and: why am I getting flashbacks to the
Re: (Score:2)
It probably gained the traction it did for the same reason the Chinese regime pushed it - people wanted it to be true. Good ol' confirmation bias.
We should be very suspicious of Chinese research. It should not be trusted. Communists don't see science as a way of building knowledge, but as no more than a tool for enforcing their will. The results will alway
Re: (Score:0)
> are there any useful techniques [beyond the obvious of looking at the data] to help detect fabricated research?
No. You have to look at the data. There's no way around it. Was that even a question?
> A general field in which integrity and honour were watch-words has become completely corrupted over time.
It was always utterly corrupt.
A lot of silly theories and experiments from the past (psychoanalysis, racism, vitalism, rat park, etc) hadn't become famous because the evidence was compelling or the pe