Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Many Surveys, About One In Five, May Contain Fraudulent Data (sciencemag.org)

Posted by timothy on from the ask-those-dentists-about-the-gum-again dept.

sciencehabit writes: How often do people conducting surveys simply fabricate some or all of the data? Several high-profile cases of fraud over the past few years have shone a spotlight on that question, but the full scope of the problem has remained unknown. [Tuesday], at a meeting in Washington, D.C., a pair of well-known researchers presented a statistical test for detecting fabricated data in survey answers. When they applied it to more than 1000 public data sets from international surveys, a worrying picture emerged: About one in five of the surveys failed, indicating a high likelihood of fabricated data.

4 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Self referential? by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    23.7 % of statistical analyses make up their statistics.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  2. One in 5 surveys incompetently fraudulent by Diss+Champ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not that only 1 in 5 surveys may contain fraudulent data, it is that the fraud is only incompetent enough to be caught by this method in 1 in 5 surveys.

  3. I'm not actually surprised ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like it or not, a lot of public opinion polls are paid for by people who want to support a specific point.

    Public opinion polls these days are as much PR and marketing as anything else.

    Honestly, Pew makes money doing this stuff; honest player or not, they have a vested interest in keeping up the belief that their stuff is honest, unbiased, and accurate.

    But I'm entirely willing to believe opinion polls are carefully crafted, or sneakily tweaked, to arrive at the conclusions they've been commissioned to a arrive at.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:I'm not actually surprised ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, like the Gartner Magic Quadrant shit that most C-suite people drool over.

      Or bond ratings agencies.

      I suspect most people, except the people who cite those things, have long since assumed they're full of shit and the conclusions are paid for.

      Why would you assume it's honest and objective information? Someone has to make money off it.

      And if you don't like that, start your own foundation or think tank, and have them publish stuff to your liking.

      Sorry, it's all PR and marketing. It sure as hell aint facts or accurate predictons.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.