Why Leiden doesn’t care about fraud (and stop whistleblowers) » Mare Online

“The university should not try to keep things small,” said a shocked dean, who compared the document to a “Secret Service report.” CWI President Fritz Roosendaal also described the black paint as “incorrect.” Former winner of the Spinoza Prize and Most Quoted A scientist in the Netherlands felt compelled to explain what integrity research serves in preschool: “The goal of committees like ours is to keep science as pure as possible, among other things by pointing out articles that are not good.”

When the Executive Board was asked how and why the black bars exist, it finally told us what it really thinks about tackling fraud, cleaning up the flag, and placing the whistleblower.

Did not bother.

Well, she phrased it a little more obscurely. But anyone who has read all of the disclaimers (“big dilemma,” “extremely careful consideration”) and quasi-crimes of anguish (“you can hardly do it right”) can only conclude that everything has remained the same. The fraud was kept a secret, the flag was not cleared, and the whistleblowers were the scapegoats.

The fact that two fraudulent articles were previously mentioned by name, according to the board, was “because of the seriousness of what was created” and “in support of the complainants who courageously removed their necks”. But now that fifteen more cheating posts have been added, it suddenly became important to protect the co-authors. Bad luck for the brave tie.

In short: the more fraud, the less we do.