Resolves to each answer that fulfills the criteria below, by my best judgment:

1. The person or team is accused of specific, serious scientific misconduct.
2. The accused are notable (in textbooks/syllabi, mainstream media, TED talks, etc.).
3. The accusations are at minimum favorably covered in the specialist circles (e.g. Retraction Watch, Andrew Gelman’s blog, Data Colada).
4. The scandal relates primarily to academia rather than the business world (Theranos should not count).
5. It is a new, well-defined scandal – not publicly established before 2023 as more than suspicions or rumors.
6. It’s not a Sokal-style provocation.

The named person or team does not need to be held individually guilty in 2023. Their work doesn’t have to be in English (but it has to have international notability).

The market is somewhat experimental. The goal is to pick up and reward good early rumblings; I may clarify the rules to align with that goal. Because free response markets have weird payout rules, if a promising name is added, it may be good to also give it a binary market. For calibration, in the past, valid answers would include (not completely sure about the years): Jan Hendrik Schön (2002), Brian Wansink (2017), Hans Eysenck (2019), Dan Ariely (2021), and Didier Raoult (2021).