Francesca Gino | |
---|---|
Title | Professor of Business Administration |
Academic background | |
Education | |
Academic work | |
Discipline | Organizational behavior |
Institutions | Harvard University |
Website | francescagino |
Francesca Gino (born 1977/1978 [1] ) is an Italian-American behavioral scientist.
In June 2023,after an investigation concluded that she had falsified data in her research,she was placed on unpaid administrative leave from her position as Tandon Family Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School (HBS) and as head of HBS's Negotiation,Organizations and Markets (NOM) unit. [2] [3] [4] Gino was also later accused of plagiarism. [5]
Gino grew up in Tione di Trento,Italy. [1] She earned her Bachelor's degree at the University of Trento,Italy,in 2001,and her MSc and PhD degrees at Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa in 2004. [6] During these studies,she came to Harvard Business School as a visiting fellow,and stayed on as a postdoctoral fellow after completing her doctorate. [1] [7]
Before joining Harvard University in 2010,she taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Carnegie Mellon University. [8] [9] [10]
Gino conducted research on rule-breaking,which she discussed in her 2018 book,Rebel Talent. [11] She was also affiliated with Harvard Law School's Program on Negotiation,and with Harvard University's Mind,Brain,Behavior Initiative. [12] Between December 2016 and 2019,she served as editor-in-chief of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes . In 2020 she received a total compensation from Harvard of $1,049,532,making her the 5th highest paid individual at the school. [13]
Gino co-authored many peer-reviewed articles and was described by behavioral scientist Maurice Schweitzer at the Wharton School as a "leading scholar in the field" of behavioral science. [14]
In or before 2020,a graduate student named ZoéZiani developed concerns about the validity of results from a highly publicized paper by Gino about networking. [15] According to Ziani,she was strongly warned by her academic advisers not to criticize Gino,and two members of her dissertation committee refused to approve her thesis unless she deleted criticism of Gino's paper from it. [15] In spring 2021,Ziani conducted a replication of Gino's study,failing to obtain any of the effects Gino had reported,and concluded "that there was almost no way the paper’s effect size could have been naturally generated" (as summarized by The New Yorker). [15] Ziani,together with a collaborator,subsequently alerted Data Colada,a team of three behavioral scientists known for investigating faulty research,who had been independently developing concerns about Gino's work since 2014. [15] Later that year,the Data Colada team contacted Harvard University about anomalies in four papers by Gino. [15] [16] Harvard subsequently conducted its own internal investigation with the help of an outside firm,which discovered additional data alterations besides the cases raised by Data Colada. [15]
In June 2023,after the internal investigation had resulted in a 1200-page report that found Gino "committed research misconduct intentionally,knowingly,or recklessly," and recommended the university initiate steps leading to her termination,Harvard Business School placed her on unpaid administrative leave. [3] [4] [15] [17] [18] As described by the dean of HBS,"[a]fter a comprehensive evaluation that took 18 months from start to completion,the investigation committee—comprising three senior HBS colleagues—determined that research misconduct had occurred." [19] According to the report,Gino offered two explanations for the signs of data tampering:either that this was an honest mistake by her or her research assistants,or that "someone who had access to her computer,online data-storage account,and/or data files" tampered with her data out of malice,naming one of her coauthors in one of the since-retracted papers as the most likely suspect. [20] Neither of the two explanations was accepted by Harvard's investigators,who wrote in the report that "Although we acknowledge that the theory of a malicious actor might be remotely possible,we do not find it plausible," adding that Gino’s "repeated and strenuous argument for a scenario of data falsification by bad actors across four different studies,an argument we find to be highly implausible,leads us to doubt the credibility of her written and oral statements to this committee more generally." [18]
Around the same time as Harvard placed her on leave,Data Colada published four blog posts detailing evidence that the four papers (all of which had been retracted or set to be retracted at that point),and possibly others by Gino,"contain fake data." [4] [21]
The four now-retracted papers at the heart of the allegations are:
The first of these papers had already been retracted due to an unrelated data issue, also uncovered by Data Colada. The other three papers were retracted in response to Harvard's investigation.
Gino subsequently filed a defamation suit against Harvard, Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar, and the three data investigators of Data Colada for $25 million, alleging that they had conspired to damage her reputation with false accusations and that the penalties against her amounted to gender-based discrimination under Title IX. [4] Gino denied having falsified data, and accused Harvard and the Data Colada team of having "worked together to destroy my career and reputation despite admitting they have no evidence proving their allegations." [16]
The lawsuit raised concerns about chilling effects. Open science proponent Simine Vazire raised over $370,000 to help cover the legal fees of Data Colada. [22] [23]
On October 10, 2023, Harvard University and Dean Datar filed a motion to partially dismiss the lawsuit, "citing the need for the University to have autonomy in its academic decision-making" (according to The Harvard Crimson ). [24] On November 8, 2023, the Data Colada defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them, contending that Gino's lawsuit does not meet the pleading standards for a viable defamation action. [25]
As part of its motion to partially dismiss, Harvard submitted its internal 1200-page report as evidence. [20] Initially it was kept under seal, but the university as well as The New Yorker and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed motions to make it public, which were opposed by Francesca Gino's lawyers, who filed a motion to keep the report from the public. [26] In March 2024, judge Myong J. Joun ruled to unseal it (with some redactions) as a judicial record "to which there exists a presumptive right of public access." [20] In the view of Vox journalist Kelsey Piper, the unsealed document "makes the allegations of Gino’s misconduct look more warranted than ever." [27]
On September 11, 2024, the judge dismissed all of Gino's claims against the Data Colada defendants (defamation and other claims), and dismissed Gino's defamation and certain other claims (such as violation of privacy) against the Harvard University defendants, while allowing some breach of contract claims against Harvard to continue. [28] [29] Gino has also claimed that Harvard discriminated against her on the basis of her gender. Harvard did not move for dismissal of that claim, so the litigation continues on that claim as well. [30]
Following the revelations by Harvard and Data Colada, the Many Co-Authors Project was launched by a group of Gino's co-authors, a "mass self-auditing effort" ( The Chronicle of Higher Education ) where over 140 collaborators of Francesca Gino are trying "to collect and share information on the provenance and availability of the data for all articles co-authored by Francesca Gino." [31] [32] [19] It began publishing findings on November 6, 2023, listing 56 papers that had named Gino as having been involved in data collection, and reporting that for around 60% of these, all the co-authors who had responded reported not having access to the raw data. [31] Behavioral scientist Juliana Schroeder of UC Berkeley stated that she and other collaborators had initiated the retraction of another paper they had coauthored with Gino, citing a failure to track down data for four experiments in the paper and "unexplained issues" with two of its other datasets. [31] Gino reacted by decrying the Many Co-Authors Project for unfairly singling her out for scrutiny, and by accusing one of the involved researchers of falsely claiming that she (Gino) had collected data for one of the papers. [31]
In April 2024, it was reported that Gino was suspected of numerous instances of plagiarism in several of her works, including her books Rebel Talent and Sidetracked, which were from a variety of sources, including several undergraduate theses (none of which were supervised by Gino), research papers and chapters by other researchers, and newspaper and magazine articles, including those by Forbes and Reactor (at the time Tor.com). Gino's lawyer denied the allegations. [5] [33]
Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research. It is violation of scientific integrity: violation of the scientific method and of research ethics in science, including in the design, conduct, and reporting of research.
Sexual misconduct is misconduct of a sexual nature which exists on a spectrum that may include a broad range of sexual behaviors considered unwelcome. This includes conduct considered inappropriate on an individual or societal basis of morality, sexual harassment and/or criminal sexual assault.
In academic publishing, a retraction is a mechanism by which a published paper in an academic journal is flagged for being seriously flawed to the extent that their results and conclusions can no longer be relied upon. Retracted articles are not removed from the published literature but marked as retracted. In some cases it may be necessary to remove an article from publication, such as when the article is clearly defamatory, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a serious health risk to the general public.
Academic dishonesty, academic misconduct, academic fraud and academic integrity are related concepts that refer to various actions on the part of students that go against the expected norms of a school, university or other learning institution. Definitions of academic misconduct are usually outlined in institutional policies. Therefore, academic dishonesty consists of many different categories of behaviour, as opposed to being a singular concept.
John Roland Darsee is an American physician and former medical researcher. After compiling an impressive list of publications in reputable scientific journals, he was found to have fabricated data for his publications.
Dana–Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) is a comprehensive cancer treatment and research center in Boston, Massachusetts. Dana-Farber is the founding member of the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Harvard's Comprehensive Cancer Center designated by the National Cancer Institute, and one of the 15 clinical affiliates and research institutes of Harvard Medical School.
Thereza Imanishi-Kari is an associate professor of pathology at Tufts University. Her research focuses on the origins of autoimmune diseases, particularly systemic lupus erythematosus, studied using mice as model organisms. Previously she had been a faculty member at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She is notable for her role in what became known as the "Baltimore affair", in which a 1986 paper she co-authored with David Baltimore was the subject of research misconduct allegations. Following a series of investigations, she was fully exonerated of the charges in 1996.
In scientific inquiry and academic research, data fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research results. As with other forms of scientific misconduct, it is the intent to deceive that marks fabrication as unethical, and thus different from scientists deceiving themselves. There are many ways data can be fabricated. Experimental data can be fabricated by reporting experiments that were never conducted, and accurate data can be manipulated or misrepresented to suit a desired outcome. One of the biggest problems with this form of scientific fraud is that "university investigations into research misconduct are often inadequate, opaque and poorly conducted. They challenge the idea that institutions can police themselves on research integrity."
Marc D. Hauser is an American evolutionary biologist and a researcher in primate behavior, animal cognition and human behavior and neuroscience. Hauser was a professor of psychology at Harvard University from 1998 to 2011. In 2010 Harvard found him guilty of research misconduct, specifically fabricating and falsifying data, after which he resigned. Because Hauser's research was financed by government grants, the Office of Research Integrity of the Health and Human Services Department also investigated, finding in 2012 that Hauser had fabricated data, manipulated experimental results, and published falsified findings.
Brian Wansink is an American former professor and researcher who worked in consumer behavior and marketing research. He was the executive director of the USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) from 2007 to 2009 and held the John S. Dyson Endowed Chair in the Applied Economics and Management Department at Cornell University, where he directed the Cornell Food and Brand Lab.
Dan Ariely is an Israeli-American professor and author. He serves as a James B. Duke Professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University. He is the co-founder of several companies implementing insights from behavioral science. Ariely wrote an advice column called "Ask Ariely" in The Wall Street Journal from June 2012 until September 2022. He is the author of the three New York Times best selling books Predictably Irrational, The Upside of Irrationality, and The Honest Truth about Dishonesty. He co-produced the 2015 documentary (Dis)Honesty: The Truth About Lies.
Jill Lepore is an American historian and journalist. She is the David Woods Kemper '41 Professor of American History at Harvard University and a staff writer at The New Yorker, where she has contributed since 2005. She writes about American history, law, literature, and politics.
Paolo Macchiarini is a thoracic surgeon and former regenerative medicine researcher who became known for research fraud and manipulative behavior. He was convicted of research-related crimes in Italy and Sweden.
Carlo Maria Croce is an Italian-American professor of medicine at Ohio State University, specializing in oncology and the molecular mechanisms underlying cancer. Croce and his research have attracted public attention because of multiple allegations of scientific misconduct.
Haruko Obokata is a former stem-cell biologist and research unit leader at Japan's Laboratory for Cellular Reprogramming, Riken Center for Developmental Biology. She claimed in 2014 to have developed a radical and remarkably easy way to generate stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cells that could be grown into tissue for use anywhere in the body. In response to allegations of irregularities in Obokata's research publications involving STAP cells, Riken launched an investigation that discovered examples of scientific misconduct on the part of Obokata. Attempts to replicate Obokata's STAP cell results failed. The ensuing STAP cell scandal gained worldwide attention.
Annarosa Leri is a medical doctor and former associate professor at Harvard University. Along with former professor Piero Anversa, Leri was engaged in biomedical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School. Since at least 2003 Anversa and Leri had investigated the ability of the heart to regenerate damaged cells using cardiac stem cells.
Uri Simonsohn is a behavioral scientist at ESADE business school in Ramon Llull University in Barcelona, Spain, and a Senior Fellow at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. His substantive interest is in Judgment and Decision Making, and he is also a methodologist.
Ranga P. Dias is a researcher with a primary interest in condensed matter physics. He was an assistant professor in the departments of Mechanical Engineering and Physics and Astronomy at the University of Rochester (UR), and a scientist at the UR Laboratory for Laser Energetics. As of November 19, 2024, he was no longer employed at UR.
Data Colada is a blog dedicated to investigative analysis and replication of academic research, focusing in particular on the validity of findings in the social sciences.