Oh wow. From your link

> The fallout from the saga is likely to continue. Simonsohn and several of Gino’s co-authors last year launched a project to assess the reliability of her past papers. So far, this has led to a further retraction in February and a correction in July. Science reported in April that Gino also appeared to have plagiarized passages of text in some of her publications.

It’s also hilarious how the judge let her continue the suit against Harvard. Like “hey I plagiarized fine, but you focused on my plagiarism more than others’ that not fair”. Even as more retractions due to plagiarism kept coming…

Kudos to Data Colada for sticking to their guns and not being cowed by that law suit. More power to them.

IANAL, but it seems the suit against Harvard is still in progress, as far as I can tell: Harvard is seeking a summary judgement, and on August 5 the judge granted Gino's request to file "a renewed Statement of Additional Material Facts that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Standing Order, including the requirements governing format and organization" [1] with 14 days to reply and 14 days thereafter for Harvard to respond in turn. It looks like Gino's team filed the former on August 26 [2].

From the Introduction, the gist of this statement seems (to me) to be that Harvard's finding of grave misconduct cannot simply be taken as being correct, and so the issue should be put to a jury.

Harvard has counter-sued, apparently alleging that Gino had altered and backdated an Excel file presented as evidence that Harvard's investigation had used the wrong data - a claim which which she, of course, denies.

A year ago, the judge denied Data Colada's request for Gino to reimburse their legal fees after the dismissal of the case against them, which strikes me as unfortunate.

[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67659904/gino-v-harvard...

[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67659904/258/gino-v-pre...