The real crime is her inability or incompetency in expending even the most trivial of efforts, to cover up her fraud by deleting older versions stored in Excel...

[delayed]

Is it journalistic malpractice to "teach the controversy" about bogus lawsuits?

> One of the papers at the center of the present controversy — a 2012 paper on dishonesty — had, in fact, already been retracted before this scandal because, in an unrelated scandal, the data in a different one of the three experiments that made up the study had been manipulated or falsified by a different person.

So we have a dishonesty paper that is falsified data in two different experiments by two different people.

> the researchers failed to consider other explanations for the “anomalies” in the data sets analyzed; that Harvard’s investigation into the allegations was “unfair and biased,” and that Harvard’s punishment was “overly harsh” — harsher than similar punishments when male professors were credibly accused of research misconduct.

That’s why they reported it to Harvard privately first. It was allegedly to allow them to investigate as well and to find if there is another plausible explanation. During and after the retraction was there any plausible explanation other than fraud?

Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37152030.