Is it defamation to point out scientific research fraud?

Francesca Gino, a researcher on dishonesty who was placed on administrative leave from Harvard Business School after allegations of systematic data manipulation in four papers is suing Harvard and the researchers accusing her.

Here is a discussion about the fraud from 15 days ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36968670

> One of the papers at the center of the present controversy — a 2012 paper on dishonesty — had, in fact, already been retracted before this scandal because, in an unrelated scandal, the data in a different one of the three experiments that made up the study had been manipulated or falsified by a different person.

So we have a dishonesty paper that is falsified data in two different experiments by two different people.

> the researchers failed to consider other explanations for the “anomalies” in the data sets analyzed; that Harvard’s investigation into the allegations was “unfair and biased,” and that Harvard’s punishment was “overly harsh” — harsher than similar punishments when male professors were credibly accused of research misconduct.

That’s why they reported it to Harvard privately first. It was allegedly to allow them to investigate as well and to find if there is another plausible explanation. During and after the retraction was there any plausible explanation other than fraud?

Is it journalistic malpractice to "teach the controversy" about bogus lawsuits?

Depends on whether you think true statements made in good faith with the goal of reducing harm can be defamatory.

Generally, I consider defamation to mean: made in bad faith, not provably true, and with a goal of harming the target. It's pretty clear the definitions and laws have changed.

Note that Gino is also suing her employer- Harvard- who conducted a review and put her on leave. She has absolutely zero chances of winning this case or salvaging her career, as she has to prove that she didn't carry out research fraud (by editing raw data before publication), because she published the evidence of her actions.

We can expect that her case will be shut down before it reaches trial.

The legal defense fundraiser for the guys who pointed out the (alleged) research fraud:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...

I would posit that it is defamatory by technical description. I think good faith collegiality requires reaching out to the person deemed to be a fraud and trying to resolve the matter as colleagues and peers instead of assuming bad faith and invoking a pitch-forks out call for decrying the fraudster. That said, the evidence laid out by the research group against Gino doesn't leave any doubt that fraud didn't take place. The defendants should prove that Gino would have covered up her tracks had they taken a more reasonable approach. Additionally, I think a stronger case can be made by involving the funding agencies that supported Gino's work as it's their money that was misspent. Lastly, it would make sense to bring evidence of Gino's work impacting downstream research or policies bc of its fraudulent claims. The last two points are essential if the defense is that maintaining the integrity of scientific research was the goal.

The real crime is her inability or incompetency in expending even the most trivial of efforts, to cover up her fraud by deleting older versions stored in Excel...