哈佛诚信研究员涉嫌数据造假

哈佛大学诚信研究员弗朗西斯卡·吉诺（Francesca Gino）的一些高调出版物中，可能也存在着抄袭段落。她的工作因涉嫌数据造假而受到质疑。

据蒙特利尔大学心理学家埃琳·阿克兰（Erinn Acland）向《科学》杂志分享的分析显示，吉诺与人合著的一本书章节文本中含有与10个早期来源极为相似的多个段落。这些来源包括已发表的论文和学生论文。

《科学》杂志已确认了阿克兰的发现，并在吉诺的两本书《反叛天赋：为何在工作中打破规则会有所回报》和《偏离轨道：我们的决定为何会脱轨，以及我们如何坚持计划》中至少发现了15个额外的借用文本段落。其中一些段落直接复制了新闻报道或博客的文本，其他则包含了与学术文献段落完全相同的措辞。重复的程度在不同段落之间有所不同，但所有段落都包含多个相同的短语，以及明显的释义和显著的结构相似性。

吉诺的律师安德鲁·米尔滕伯格（Andrew Miltenberg）在一份声明中表示，吉诺“坚定地致力于查明每个实例的真相，必要时果断回应并纠正记录。”他说：“在公众舆论这个多变的领域中诉讼这些指控是极其不公平和有偏见的。历史已经表明，尤其是在科学界，过早的判断的危险，声誉可能会受到无法修复的损害。”哈佛商学院的调查建议大学开始终止吉诺的雇佣程序，自2023年6月起她的机构个人资料表明她正在休行政假。

柏林应用科技大学的抄袭专家德博拉·韦伯-乌尔夫（Debora Weber-Wulff）表示，《科学》杂志的发现“相当严重”，需要出版商和大学进一步调查。出版《偏离轨道》一书的哈佛商学院出版社和哈佛商业评论出版社拒绝置评。出版《反叛天赋》一书的HarperCollins旗下的Dey Street Books和出版包含合著章节的编辑书籍《善与恶的社会心理学》的Guilford出版社未回应置评请求。

阿克兰表示，她在2023年9月决定“深入探究”吉诺的作品，此前吉诺对揭露不端行为的哈佛商学院和数据侦探提起了2500万美元的诉讼。由于她在检测学生作品中的抄袭方面的经验，阿克兰专注于抄袭而非数据问题。她在谷歌学术上搜索吉诺作品的短语，以查看它们是否与其他作品的内容相匹配。

她说，在她评估的第一项工作中，即2016年的章节“解释不诚实行为：什么导致道德人做出不道德行为”，她发现了第一句就存在明显的抄袭。该句子——“21世纪初会计丑闻和数十亿美元公司的倒闭永远改变了商业格局”——与华盛顿大学管理研究员伊丽莎白·厄姆弗雷斯（Elizabeth Umphress）及其同事在2010年的一篇论文中的段落一字不差。

该章节的其他文本部分与另外六篇已发表的论文和章节以及三篇学生论文相匹配。有些匹配是精确的，其他的则包括释义的单词或短语，但保留了明显的相似性。

这些学生论文均非由吉诺指导，但其中一篇是由吉诺在该章节上的合著者、杜克大学行为科学家丹·阿里里（Dan Ariely）指导的。在证据显示他在2012年《国家科学院院刊》上撤回的一篇论文中的数据造假后，阿里里自己的工作也受到了审查。阿里里的发言人表示，他没有参与该章节的写作，只是提供了方向和反馈。没有其他作者或贡献者被提及。

最广泛使用的源似乎是贾斯珀·贝内韦尔德（Jasper Beijneveld）的本科生论文，该论文于2014年由蒂尔堡大学在线存档（见下方图表）。《科学》杂志调查了贝内韦尔德和吉诺是否都从第三个来源抄袭的可能性。但是，抄袭检测软件iThenticate在他的论文中没有检测到其他重要的匹配。此外，由贝内韦尔德的论文顾问、莱顿大学学术诚信和方法论研究员安娜·范特维尔（Anna van 't Veer）提供的论文草稿显示，有问题的段落随着时间推移而演变，后来的版本中纳入了更正和其他更改。第一稿与吉诺作品中匹配的已发布版本有实质性的不同，这表明没有第三个来源。

其中一些匹配的材料包括范特维尔贡献的短语。她表示，这种对她和贝内韦尔德工作的误用“扭曲了科学记录”。现在从事人力资源工作的贝内韦尔德在给《科学》杂志的一封电子邮件中写道，如果有人未经适当引用就使用了他论文中的段落，他会感到震惊。

对学生来说，被著名研究者引用——或者如果他们的贡献很大，甚至被邀请合著作品——是无价的机会，阿克兰说。“在这些情况下，他们甚至没有为他们的工作获得引用。”

在收到阿克兰的分析后，《科学》使用iThenticate来识别《反叛天赋》和《偏离轨道》中可能存在的剽窃来源，然后手动分析文本。有些完整的句子直接与现有来源完全匹配：例如，2018年出版的《反叛天赋》中描述《玩具总动员2》的一个句子与2017年Reactor杂志中的一个故事的句子完美匹配。

更常见的是，iThenticate指出了一些段落，通常有几段长，其中一些单词和短语与现有文本匹配，而其他的则被重新表述——所谓的“拼接式剽窃”。例如，《反叛天赋》中描述穿过米兰时尚区的部分讨论了“高高的、常春藤覆盖的墙壁、格子门、迷你喷泉和美丽的庭院。”看似的来源，一篇2014年的旅行杂志文章，描述了“外观简朴但内部如花园般美丽的庄严房屋。在这个街区闲逛，你会发现高高的常春藤覆盖的墙壁、格子门、迷你喷泉和石头土壤。”

吉诺的两本书以及吉诺和阿里里的章节都包含了广泛的参考文献列表。然而，对于《科学》检测到的大多数明显剽窃的例子，原始文本并未被引用。

阿克兰和《科学》还发现了吉诺和阿里里2016年章节的早期版本存档在网上。这些草稿中的措辞与最终版本相比，与明显被剽窃的来源更为接近。伦敦帝国学院的学术诚信研究员托马斯·兰开斯特说，在这些文本中可以看到一个“非常清晰的进展”：源文本在草稿作品中几乎未改变地出现，随后在最终章节中进行了更多的释义。他说，相似性“远远超过了你纯粹偶然会得到的”。

哥伦比亚商学院的社会心理学家亚当·加林斯基（Adam Galinsky），他被列为其中一个草稿的合著者，说他不知道草稿的存在，并且作为第一作者、在她的核心领域写作的吉诺必须写了它。一位接近吉诺的消息人士说，研究人员使用这样的草稿来记下想法和理论，以便稍后迭代，认为在草稿和其他来源之间“画平行线”是不公平的。

斯坦福大学心理学家贝努瓦·莫宁（Benoît Monin），他的2007年和2009年的作品似乎在吉诺和阿里里的章节中被广泛使用，他说他“不能为这些惊人的相似之处提供一个明显的无害解释”，但他不觉得自己能够胜任评论这些相似之处是否符合剽窃的定义。

韦伯-乌尔夫说，这个定义可能很棘手，但是以一种掩饰其来源的方式使用他人的工作是对想法来源和作者贡献的歪曲，这阻止了其他研究人员审查和跟踪推理。“如果你使用了别人的文本，你应该总是说明它从哪里开始，在哪里结束，以及你从哪里得到的。我不认为那是火箭科学。”

Several passages in Francesca Gino’s work appear to closely match a range of sources, including student theses, news reports, and academic papers. The passages contain phrases that match exactly, as well as apparent paraphrases and structural similarities. In these examples, similar sections are highlighted, and exact matches of two or more words are shown in bold.

Rome is the capital of Italy, but Milan is the country’s fashion capital. Postcards of the northern city generally depict its classic Gothic cathedral, the impressive shopping mall Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II (the oldest in the world), and the well-known opera house Teatro alla Scala. But when I visit the city I always like to take a stroll down the “fashion quadrilateral,” which consists of Via Manzoni, Via Monte Napoleone, Via della Spiga, and Corso Venezia. Along these four streets you can find luxurious boutiques, both Italian and foreign, from Bottega Veneta, Armani, Valentino, and Prada to Chanel, Burberry, Dior, Kenzo, and Hermès. No matter what you are wearing, it is easy to feel underdressed as you pass the store windows. Nearby, imposing houses with high, ivy-covered walls, lattice doors, miniature fountains, and beautiful courtyards help make this one of the noblest areas in the city.

F. GINO, REBEL TALENT: WHY IT PAYS TO BREAK THE RULES AT WORK AND IN LIFE, NEW YORK: DEY STREET BOOKS, 2018 (CHAPTER 1, P. 22)

Even though the capital of Italy is Rome, Milan is the center of fashion and design. This northern Italian metropolis is much more than the gray and industrial city that meets the eye. A leisurely stroll by the trendy neighborhood of Brera confirms that Milan deserves a second chance. Beyond postcards depicting its classic Gothic cathedral, the impressive Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II and the Teatro alla Scala, emerges another Milan, enjoyable and always elegant. One of the city’s noblest areas is the “fashion quadrilateral” comprising four streets: Via Monte Napoleone, Via Manzoni, Via della Spiga and Corso Venezia. The most luxurious firms—both Italian and foreign—are based there: from Bottega Veneta, Alberta Ferretti and Prada to Chanel, Dior, Hermes, Burberry and Kenzo, among others. Nearby, you find imposing houses with beautiful courtyards, simple on the outside, but flowery inside. To poke around this neighborhood is to discover high ivy-covered walls, lattice doors, miniature fountains and stony soils unsuitable for the high heels worn by the Milanese women.

M. FRANKY, "TRAVEL TO MILAN, ITALY’S DESIGN AND FASHION CAPITAL," AZUREAZURE.COM, 2014

Internal processes and values that can determine the level of people’s fudge factor are often grounded in socialization processes. Internalized values (e.g., being honest or generous toward others) and societal norms (e.g., behaving in appropriate ways such as being polite toward others) function as a benchmark against which people compare their behavior (Henrich et al., 2001). Compliance with these values and norms results in internal “rewards” (e.g., feeling good about yourself), whereas noncompliance results in internal “punishment” (e.g., feeling bad about yourself). Evidence for this internal punishment and reward system is provided by brain-imaging studies (De Quervain et al., 2004; Rilling et al., 2002). By looking at brain regions with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that are activated in punishment-and-reward situations, the authors concluded that these regions were also activated by norm compliance (i.e., situations in which people behaved in ways consistent with accepted social norms, such as cooperating) and noncompliance (i.e., situations in which people behaved in ways inconsistent with accepted social norms). The internal punishment and-reward system seems to be involved in norm-related behavior (e.g., acting in a fair or cooperative way in situations in which doing so is expected).

F. GINO AND D. ARIELY, “DISHONESTY EXPLAINED: WHAT LEADS MORAL PEOPLE TO ACT IMMORALLY,” THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF GOOD AND EVIL, 2016 (PP. 322-344)

These internal processes are grounded in socialization processes. Internalized values and norms of society function as a benchmark against which a person compares his or her behavior (Henrich, Boyd, Bowles, Camerer, Fehr, Gintis, & McElreath, 2001). Compliance to these values and norms results in internal “rewards” (e.g. feeling good about yourself) whereas non-compliance results in internal “punishment” (e.g. feeling bad about yourself). Evidence for this internal punishment and reward system is found by brain imaging studies of De Quervain, Fishbacher, Treyer, Schelthammer, Schnyder, Buck and Fehr (2004) and Rilling, Gutman, Zeh, Pagnoni, Bern and Kilts (2002). By looking at brain regions with fMRI that are activated in punishment and reward situations, the authors concluded that these regions were also activated in norm compliance and non-compliance. The internal punishment and reward system seems to be involved in norm related behavior.

J. BEIJNEVELD, “FEELING MORAL AND POSITIVE WHEN LYING: EFFECTS OF THE SCHOPE OF AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DISHONESTY ON THE SELF-CONCEPT,” TILBURG UNIVERSITY, 2014

The original concept for the sequel seemed solid. Woody, a cowboy doll, is excitedly anticipating a trip to Cowboy Camp. Finally, he’ll have quality time alone with Andy, the boy who owns him. Woody is one of Andy’s favorite toys. At the same time, Woody is worried about what will happen to the considerably less responsible toys in Andy’s room while he’s gone. But these worries are forgotten when Woody faces a major crisis: His arm is ripped, and the injury keeps him from going to Cowboy Camp. Another crisis soon follows: A toy collector kidnaps Woody and takes him to his apartment, where a new group of toys is introduced. Among them is a Cowgirl named Jessie, a horse named Bullseye, and a mint-quality doll named Stinky Pete. They explain to Woody that they are all toys based on Woody’s Roundup, a TV show from the 1940s and 1950s. Now that Woody has joined them, the Woody’s Roundup toys can all be sold to a museum in Japan, doomed to spend the rest of their lives separated from children by thick glass.

F. GINO, REBEL TALENT: WHY IT PAYS TO BREAK THE RULES AT WORK AND IN LIFE, NEW YORK: DEY STREET BOOKS, 2018 (CHAPTER 7, P. 154)

Woody is preparing for a major trip to Cowboy Camp, where finally he will have Quality Time with Andy.

…

Plus, Woody being Woody, he’s worried—very worried—about what will happen to the rest of considerably less responsible toys while he’s gone.

…

And so, just minutes into the film, Woody faces a major tragedy: his arm is ripped, and therefore, he can’t go to Cowboy Camp.

…

Woody finds himself stolen by a toy collector, Al (voiced by Wayne Knight, here more or less playing his character Newman from Seinfeld), and taken to Al’s apartment. Here, Woody meets a new set of toys—notably Jessie the Cowgirl, Bullseye the horse, and Stinky Pete, the still in the box, mint quality doll—who tell him the truth: he’s one of several toys based on Woody’s Roundup, an old black and white television show from the 1940s and 1950s that bears a remarkable and hilarious resemblance to the old Howdy Doody show. The central toy from that show, as it happens. Now that Woody has joined them, the Woody’s Roundup toys can all be sold to a museum in Japan, doomed to spend the rest of their lives separated from children by thick glass.

M. NESS, “EVEN TOYS HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES: CHARACTER GROWTH IN TOY STORY 2,” REACTORMAG.COM, 2017

For instance, in Milgram’s famous experiment, an experimental assistant (an accomplice) asked each study participant to play the role of a teacher and administer “electric shocks” to another participant, the “learner” (who was actually a confederate or experimental assistant), each time the learner made a mistake on a word-learning exercise. After each mistake, the participant was asked to administer a shock of increasingly higher voltage, which began to result in apparent audibly increasing signs of distress from the learner. Over 60% of the study participants administered “shocks” through to the highest voltage, which was marked clearly as being potentially dangerous (Milgram, 1974). These results suggest that it is not individual character that causes one to inflict great pain on an innocent person but rather the situation in which an authority demands obedience.

F. GINO AND D. ARIELY, “DISHONESTY EXPLAINED: WHAT LEADS MORAL PEOPLE TO ACT IMMORALLY,” THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF GOOD AND EVIL, 2016 (PP. 322-344)

In the Milgram experiment, an experimental assistant (an accomplice) asked each subject to administer ‘electric shocks’ to another subject-accomplice (a confederate or experimental assistant) each time the subject-accomplice made a mistake on a word-learning exercise. After each mistake, the subject was asked to administer a shock of higher voltage which resulted in ‘apparent’ audibly increasing distress from the subject-accomplice. Over 60% of the subjects shocked their subjects-accomplices through to the highest voltage (Milgram 1974). The Milgram experiment apparently shows that it is not character that causes one to inflict great pain on an innocent person, but rather the situation in which an expert demands one’s obedience.

S. ARJOON, “RECONCILING SITUATIONAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY WITH VIRTUE ETHICS,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS 10.3, 2008 (PP. 221-243)

Or consider the story of Ken Olsen, a leader in the minicomputer sector as a cofounder of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) back in 1957. During the following two decades, DEC dominated the scientific and engineering workstation market and, by the late 1970s, was number two in the computer industry under Olsen’s leadership, thanks to the company’s development of a unified hardware architecture and operating system. But in the early 1980s, Sun Microsystems appeared on the market with a superior technology, a leaner business model, and a more aggressive sales force that used its “open” Unix operating system as a compelling pitch. Throughout the 1990s, Sun’s revenues exceeded $2 billion as the company came to dominate the workstation market that DEC had once ruled.

F. GINO, SIDETRACKED: WHY OUR DECISIONS GET DERAILED AND HOW WE CAN STICK TO THE PLAN, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW PRESS 2015 (CHAPTER 1, P. 25)

Consider Ken Olsen, the giant who pioneered the minicomputer sector as a co-founder of Digital Equipment Corporation in 1957. For the next decade, DEC dominated the scientific and engineering workstation market, especially through its leading position in universities. By the late 1970s, Olsen led the company’s development of a unified hardware architecture and operating system dubbed VAX/VMS, putting it well ahead of IBM and HP in rationalizing diverse product lines. Product consolidations encountered considerable internal resistance, but helped lift DEC into the number two position in the computer industry. Unnoticed, DEC’s apogee came in 1982 with the formation of Sun Microsystems based on superior technology, a leaner business model, and a more aggressive sales force using the “open” Unix operating system as its most compelling pitch. Sun’s 1990 revenues hurtled past $2.4 billion by saturating the workstation market that DEC had once dominated.

E. SAVITZ, “THE RISKS OF CEO SUCCESSION,” FORBES.COM