The first two of these blog posts are:
> students approached this “Year in School” question in a number of different ways. For example, a junior might have written “junior”, or “2016” or “class of 2016” or “3” (to signify that they are in their third year). All of these responses are reasonable.
> A less reasonable response is “Harvard” [...] Nevertheless, the data file indicates that 20 students did so. Moreover, and adding to the peculiarity, those students’ responses are all within 35 rows (450 through 484) of each other in the posted dataset
In addition, of these 20 very suspicious rows, most were strongly confirming the hypothesis of the authors.
Likewise the first link shows that, in a spreadsheet containing outcomes sorted by treatment group, someone had manually moved rows from the span of rows containing one kind of treatment to a span containing outcomes from a different treatment. These provably manually reordered rows also contained most of the strong evidence for the predicted effect...
> We discovered evidence of fraud in papers spanning over a decade
> We believe that many more Gino-authored papers contain fake data. Perhaps dozens.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is my friend, Doctor Kimble…
> It is worth reiterating that to the best of our knowledge, none of Gino’s co-authors carried out or assisted with the data collection for the studies in this series.
I'm confused; I thought 109 described a paper in which Ariely was the sole person to handle the data. How is this not contradictory?
An earlier Data Colada post -- https://datacolada.org/98 -- is about Study 3 in the same article. It seems that Ariely is the only co-author who might have handled the data for that study.