Re:Faked Crystallography
by raverbashing on Sunday July 31, 2022 @02:32PM
(#32297572)
It is fake if it's being misrepresented as experimental results instead of just a simulation
Again, that is not what this word means. It’s misrepresented data, not fake. And yes, the distinction matters.
This is also not what the article is about. The problem they face is completely fabricated data, not DFT structures in a poorly worded paper.
Of all places, this is probably the last one where I would expect this argument.
Re:Faked Crystallography
by adgjlsfhk1 on Sunday July 31, 2022 @08:50PM
(#32300511)
by this metric no data is fake. It's just misrepresented and was actually numbers I pulled out of my ass.
Re:Faked Crystallography
by DiggyJohnson on Sunday July 31, 2022 @04:58PM
(#32298779)
Intent to deceive is what makes it a fake/fraud. No?
Re:Faked Crystallography
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Sunday July 31, 2022 @04:41PM
(#32298643)
It is arguable that it is more than a misrepresentation if the author's intent is to fool the reveiwers. If so, it is "fraudulent data".
That is not what fake data is. It might be a misrepresentation is the author tries to pass it out as experimental results, but it is not fake, i.e. it came from a real study and actually has some meaning (though not much if it is indeed an unstable structure that can just be observed in a computer, and it is ground for rejection depending on the journal).
I mean, I don’t have much patience with people over-hyping their results, but fake data of the common sort is either photoshopped graphs, re-used spectra coming from other studies or compounds, or things like that. And this definitely happens. But the “it came from a simulation, therefore it’s fake” argument is very unhelpful in general.
A spectrum from a simulation is not fake, it’s just a simulation result.