Denyse asks if there’s a rise in dishonesty and cheating in academia.
I doubt it. Primarily there has been a huge rise in PUBLISHED UNITS since tenure and grants dominated academia in 1970. Grad students and new profs are required to churn out huge QUANTITIES of papers, and the only way to get there is by minimizing the QUALITY of each unit. This problem has been perfectly well-known and discussed since 1970.
When there’s more low-quality material available, there’s more leverage for SELECTIVE quality control. Peer review is mainly orthodoxy control. Thus a rejected paper is far more likely to be unorthodox REGARDLESS of its quality.
More specifically, the papers Denyse mentions in the article are unorthodox. Inside “social” “science”, genes are unorthodox. “Social” “science” still starts with the meritocratic lie that anyone can choose to be and do anything. In recent years anything has included “being” female or male or in between. This is only an extension of the basic principle of meritocracy into somewhat new territory.
The harder end of biology came to terms with genes a long time ago, and is starting to allow epigenes as part of orthodoxy.
Two of the papers are trying to analyze the basic qualities of psychopaths and liars. Many grants in “social” “science” are provided by Deepstate, including funds to train CIA torturers. Spies are psychopaths and liars, and don’t appreciate being analyzed by their employees.
Polistra's Mill 