It's kinda amazing that Wansink has so much reach when his work has been the subject of an upsetting amount of retractions: https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/28/another-retraction-ap...
Even his poster child Bottomless Bowls study is now under dispute. Something rotten indeed.
it's kind of amazing that he has a job
No less than as head of a research lab at Cornell, in one of the top 10 applied economics schools in the world.
>...the inaccuracies stemmed primarily from a statistical and reporting/formatting error that led to further inaccuracies.
>The review found that there was no intended deception or evidence of deliberate misconduct, and that the significance of the results and discussion in the article would not change because of the errors.
>However, since the number of errors is too voluminous to be executed by issuing a correction statement, the journal is withdrawing the article and will republish it as a corrected version in a subsequent issue, and will utilize the same DOI as the originally published version of the article. The authors agree with this decision.
This is good/ Not bad?