Will Ronald C Kessler be shown to have committed academic misconduct by 2040?

Some examples that would’ve counted as “Yes”:

Bharat Aggarwal, Dan Ariely, Nicolas Guéguen.

Examples of what we mean by "misconduct":

-Fabricating data

-Misrepresenting data

-Citation manipulation

-Impersonation

-Sabotage of another academic's work

-Plagiarism

Examples of what is sufficient for "Yes":

1. An analysis clearly shows misconduct, and they were complicit.  There are many examples on retractionwatch or forbetterscience.

2. If other researchers in the field generally agree there was misconduct.

3. A journal explaining why it retracted a paper, and if that reason was due to manipulation, cheating, or fraud.

4. There are criminal charges, if the charges are about fraud.

5. The researcher is fired for the misconduct.
   
   

Some non-requirements / often-insufficient:

1. It doesn’t necessarily require a retraction (because journals vary too much in their retraction policies and timelines). Also, not all retractions are due to cheating or misconduct.  But a retraction could be sufficient, if the journal says there was misconduct.

2. An “expression of concern” (EoC) could only count if it strongly implies misconduct.  EoCs are often issed before a consensus is reached, so it may be insufficient. Also an EoC may be given for non-misconduct reasons, so those don't count either.

3. “Ethical violations” may not count, depending on the type. This clause added because of the moral culture of concern-trolling.  For an ethical violation to count, it should also be condemned by laissez-faire types (and not just ethicists). Examples: consensual romance between faculty doesn't count, nor does expressing conservative opinions, nor milquetoast "study participant rights violations" that are frivolous.

4. Legal action is not strictly necessary for "Yes", but can count if it's about fraud.

Some things that don't count:

1. Very poor methods, but no obvious malice (example)

2. If we don't believe this researcher was complicit in the misconduct, then it won't count.

If any ambiguities come up, we'll openly discuss the case handling for that situation. We delay "Yes" until most good-faithed people who are knowledgeable about the case would say there was misconduct.

If no such event happens, then we resolve "No" in 2040-January.