Thread by @chrisdc77

@BrianWansink Hi Brian. I think the claim that you only made “mistakes” is questionable, and in the interests of posterity I’m now going to explain why, using a documented example of our interaction with you. /1

@BrianWansink Back in March 2017, @sTeamTraen noticed strange inconsistencies in a paper you published the previous year in Frontiers in Psychology called “How traumatic violence permanently changes shopping behavior”
steamtraen.blogspot.com/2017/03/cornel… /2

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen We requested the data from you on 16 March 2017. We did this because Frontiers was a TOP guidelines signatory and has a policy stating that “materials, data, and code described in published works should be made available, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher” /3

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen The next day you replied that you were working on a file sharing system to make ALL your data available. So we would have to wait until it was ALL public before getting this one dataset? /4

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen I perceived this to be an attempt to dodge our request. Promising to make the data available whenever you get round to building some hypothetical database is not “without undue reservation”. So we asked again. /5

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen That was last time we would hear from you personally. Thereafter all emails came from your (presumably long suffering) manager of the Food and Brand Lab. On March 27, your manager agreed to send us the specific data for this paper by April 28. /6

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen Result. But wait…on April 18, Long Suffering Lab Manager told us there would actually be a delay because the data was somehow confidential even though it was anonymised. /7

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen This smelled to me like another delay tactic. So we asked for the details of the IRB, so I could talk to them myself. We also noticed that it seemed to be impossible that your participant sample could have been recruited in compliance with US census laws. /8

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen A few days after asking for the details of the IRB (which funnily we never received) the mysterious IRB suddenly approved the data release. Result! After another 1 month delay, NOW we would surely be receiving the data file. /9

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen NOPE. Two months later and nothing. In July I wrote to you again. Where was the data we were promised, that your IRB given approval to share with us? /10

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen Long Suffering Lab Manager then backtracked. We weren’t getting the data afterall. It would be shared publicly at some point in the future. Back to Square one, dammit.

Oh and the recruitment method stated in the paper was rather colossally misreported. /11

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen But then something happened you didn’t expect. Frontiers requested the data. You gave it to them (presumably they threatened immediate retraction otherwise?) According to the journal policy you should ALSO have sent it to us. I wrote again, 4 months after the data request. /12

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen Long Suffering Lab Manager replied quickly this time. Suddenly there is an erratum in the works and we can’t see the data until it’s been fixed in some way. Eh? /13

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen Frontiers, it turns out, were conducting their own investigation of the data that was both available & unavailable at the same time. I wrote to them explaining that by receiving the data and yet failing to require you to send it to us, Frontiers was violating its own policy /14

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen We never heard from you or Long Suffering Lab Manager again. But then in November 2017 something else happened…

Your paper was suddenly retracted.
frontiersin.org/articles/10.33… /15

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen Frontiers claims to have been adhering to its complaints procedure. But we never instigated any complaint. We just asked to see the data that, once again, “should be made available, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher” /16

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen We never saw the data. We have no proof there was any data. So let's recap your "mistakes" /17

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen You published a paper in a journal that requires data sharing but stonewalled when we requested it, even after your own IRB approved the release
You handed the data over to Frontiers confidentially
Frontiers violated its data policy
Your paper was retracted
We never saw the data

@BrianWansink @sTeamTraen In my opinion, the public should take your apology with a grain of salt. You are sorry that you “made mistakes”? No. You should be sorry for engaging in a concerted campaign of obfuscation. Cornell found that you committed misconduct & I can see why. Enjoy your retirement.

/end