👐 Do-good app vs. trucker sex app

A scandal in which a successful professor is accused of fabricating data is revealing some interesting aspects of academia, including the existence of “data vigilantes.”

Francesca Gino…

… is a behavioral science researcher, author, and public speaker. Until she was placed on leave in June, she was a top-earning Harvard Business School professor, per Insider.

She’s also published 135+ papers, many of which have been picked up by media outlets — like a 2012 study that suggested putting an honesty pledge at the top of a document discourages cheating.

But does it?

A group of “vigilante” professors founded Data Colada in 2012, believing that scientific journals published studies that used altered data.

In 2020, Gino and her co-authors revealed they could not replicate their 2012 study and publicly shared the data for the first time. Data Colada jumped on it and found:

• Odometer readings from an auto insurance company had been fabricated. Dan Ariely, the professor who received the data, agreed that it was fabricated, but both he and the insurance company have denied doing so, per NPR.

But Data Colada also accused Gino of fabricating other data, not just in that study, but three others — and “perhaps dozens.”

This could have ramifications for her collaborators, researchers who used her studies, and the governments and organizations that implemented changes based on her research.

Why would anyone falsify data?

Gino and Ariely are not the only people who have been accused of working with fabricated data.

To achieve tenure, professors have to get papers published in journals. Research that turns out to be insignificant isn’t as likely to be published — or go viral in the media.

To curb this:

• It’s becoming more common to share data upfront, meaning researchers are free to inspect it for anomalies.
• Journals are publishing studies with null or mixed results, making it less enticing to tweak data to arrive at favorable findings.

Roar Social, a new social media platform that launched in beta yesterday, says it wants to “redefine what social media can be.”

Thank goodness. But also good freakin’ luck.

How’s Roar Social different?

It’s yet another video-sharing app, just like every other new social app you’ve already ignored, but this one hopes to stand out by sitting squarely between social media and philanthropy.

• All users are prompted to follow “causes” — think climate change or animal rights — and, per Deadline, every post is attached to a cause.
• There are no “likes.” Instead, if users want to support a video, they can tap a piggy bank icon, with each tap giving a penny to nonprofits tied to the associated cause.
• Everyone on Roar Social has to load a “social giving wallet” with at least $5.

The platform hopes to attract creators to make exclusive content supporting their pet causes, and is also leaning on big brands to direct corporate social responsibility budgets toward matching Roar Social donations.

It wants to be the “fun” donation site — its founder specifically calls out GoFundMe as being un-fun — and leans hard on the phrase “Gamified Giving” on its website.

Where could the wheels come off?

Other than the typical challenges — an endlessly saturated social market, the costs of acquiring a sizeable user base, the uphill task of keeping users continually engaged — some very funny brand confusion could potentially pose a problem.

The top result for “Roar” in the App Store is Roar, a very, very different social app that appears to be half trucker communications and half, uh, live adult video chats.