In your mind, is that "one side" that misconduct happens? Do you think the opposite side "it never happens" is reasonable?

No one here is trying to argue that it happens all the time or more often than not, I'm wondering if that's what you think we're reading.

I find that rarely when a side has an “opposing side” that either side is reasonable

In this case, “misconduct happens” is not opposite to “it never happens” and I do not find the comments to echo the former sentiment as much as “Academia has become so ripe with either outright malice, or an inability to catch earnest mistakes, that virtually no research can be trusted.”

> No one here is trying to argue that it happens all the time or more often than not, I'm wondering if that's what you think we're reading.

No one is indeed arguing that, but what many, including me, are arguing is that nothing can really be trusted any more because it's a coinflip whether data is even reproducible.

There are definitely two sides to your story then :) Not necessarily to the top comments I have read. It might be a more important story though.

On the other hand, we are presented with the raw data that makes the author of this article suspicious.

Even in the face of such evidence, it often turns out that when the other side tells it's story it's more reasonable than that and there are explanations.

#bothsides