Really interesting, but this post doesn't seem to directly say what exactly was done and why. Was the fictional Pharmakon Neuroscience Research Network being mentioned only in the funding acknowledgments of papers? Whether it was just that or also other behaviors, was the purpose to create credibility by falsely indicating that the research was funded?
Great questions. 'Pharmakon Neuroscience Research Network' was in the Funding Statement, in the Acknowledgement (as a funder), and as an affiliation of one or more of the authors. This last question would be brilliant to answer. However, without other evidence, we cannot say if any of the authors' intent was to create credibility by stating they had funding.
Really interesting, but this post doesn't seem to directly say what exactly was done and why. Was the fictional Pharmakon Neuroscience Research Network being mentioned only in the funding acknowledgments of papers? Whether it was just that or also other behaviors, was the purpose to create credibility by falsely indicating that the research was funded?
Great questions. 'Pharmakon Neuroscience Research Network' was in the Funding Statement, in the Acknowledgement (as a funder), and as an affiliation of one or more of the authors. This last question would be brilliant to answer. However, without other evidence, we cannot say if any of the authors' intent was to create credibility by stating they had funding.
Insightful and eye opening write up!
"Enforce clear author contribution statements so it’s obvious who did what."
Do you mean something more granular than CreDiT like MERIT?
Yes, like CreDiT. We don't need to reinvent anything, just enforce more transparency in authorship contributions.