Reflections on the Ariely-Gino saga, the M-CaP, and the swamp that is the Poets&Quants ecology of (wannabe) sellebrities … (update, a year later)
[More recent updates at the end … ]
This is an update of a blog entry I wrote under the same title about a year ago. The update is motivated by a new piece by Daniel Engber in The Atlantic. Engber pretty much makes the point I made a year ago:
In response to the replication crisis, campus psychology departments have lately taken up a raft of methodological reforms. Statistically suspect practices that were de rigueur a dozen years ago are now uncommon; sample sizes have gotten bigger; a study’s planned analyses are now commonly written down before the work is carried out. But this great awakening has been slower to develop in business-school psychology, several academics told me. “No one wants to kill the golden goose,” one early-career researcher in business academia said. If management and marketing professors embraced all of psychology’s reforms, he said, then many of their most memorable, most TED Talk–able findings would go away. “To use marketing lingo, we’d lose our unique value proposition.”
Or, as Aaron Charlton characterized my piece:
Instead of an executive summary …
The much anticipated (and repeatedly postponed) launch of the Many-Co-authors project (M-CaP) finally happened on 6 November 2023. It triggered another flurry of social-media activity on X as well as various anonymous sites. Francesca Gino also had her say, complaining about her being singled out and set up to be thrown under the bus.
… auditing only my papers actively ignores a deeper reflection for the field. Why is it that the focus of these efforts is solely on me?
Her point that the M-CaP site will deflect from deeper reflection for the “field” is well taken; in fact, some of the contributors have taken their cue from her (see here and here) and been mostly evasive.
The Many-Co-authors project was initiated by some of Gino’s more frequent co-authors (Max Bazerman, Julia Minson, Don Moore, Juliana Schroeder, Maurice Schweitzer) and Uri Simonsohn (a one-off Gino co-author and also one of the Data Colada trio that followed up on Zoé Ziani blowing the whistle on a Gino et al 2014 paper). Notably, Ariely, Brooks, Cunningham, Galinsky, Kouchaki, Norton, and Staats (all of whom have more than half a dozen papers with Gino) were not among the organizers of the project. So was Gino who apparently was invited to contribute but declined. (Schroeder and Alison Wood Brooks figure prominently in Engber’s write-up which also sheds light on the recent retraction of a paper on which these two were the lead authors, the other authors being Risen, Gino, Galinsky, Norton, and Schweitzer. Both Schroeder and Brooks come out looking pretty bad in the Engber piece, who quotes Schweitzer as saying that Schroeder “had been involved in data tampering” on another retracted paper.)
Gino’s co-authors auditing themselves is a questionable strategy — it can only work when all the coauthors are honest and/or innocent — , as many have noted; alas, having the M-CaP site (mnemonically easy to remember as Mad-CaP) seems a useful point from where to start cleaning up what seems a deeply corrupted ecology at the center of which are Ariely and Gino and similar sellebrities (Norton comes to mind immediately).
Within a day of M-CaP going live, Stephanie Lee reported:
So far, underlying data is available for relatively few of the papers — often because Gino’s collaborators have indicated that they do not have it. Out of the 120 papers that were listed as of Monday and relied on original data, around 20 contained links where accompanying data sets could be downloaded.
And Quentin Andre (drawing on a graph provided by M-CaP) tweeted:
On social media scores of gems were shared such as this one:
Following the emerging concerns for data falsification in other papers identified by DataColada, we reran all the analyses for Studies 1 and 2. Our results correspond to those reported in the paper. https://manycoauthors.org/gino/127
Note that the data were not made available for others to reproduce and analyze the results, something that has become the norm at every respectable journal.
Similar for paper 111:
Following the emerging recent concerns for data falsification in other papers by DataColada, we reran all the analyses and were able to replicate the findings reported in the paper. https://manycoauthors.org/gino/111
The M-CaP corresponding co-author wrote:
In 2018, a replication study was published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, with another team of researchers who collected data using our manipulation on different samples.
While “another team of researchers” was involved in the data collection of the replication study, one of the co-authors of the replication study was the M-CaP corresponding author herself. That’s not per se bad although it is hardly an arms-length replication (which admittedly has its own problems; see this excellent piece).
Alas, it would be desirable if the authors would make the data publicly available.
Another gem:
I will not be publicly posting the data or replication packet because of concerns that evaluations will not be well-adjudicated in the current public sphere.” https://manycoauthors.org/gino/121
To that author’s credit: he reversed himself within 24 hours, after this statement drew considerable reaction on social media. Kudos.
More gems:
As I remember it, the first author (Zhong) and I were provided with fully written Results sections for Experiments 1 and 3, emailed to us by the third author (Gino), but were never provided with any of the data used to generate these write-ups. … https://manycoauthors.org/gino/128
As I remember it, the second author (Bohns) and I were provided with fully written Results sections for all three experiments, emailed to us by the first author (Gino). Neither first nor second author had access to the raw data that the first author used to generate these write-ups. … https://manycoauthors.org/gino/128
Again, no data for reproducing and analyzing results available for others.
Similar for paper number 129.
Which is a shame because it is the public availability of data that allows appropriate scrutiny, here of yet another paper in which Gino was involved:
For the details see Nick Brown’s analysis here.
Overall it is quite amazing to see how
- few data are being shared, even now (and apparently then even among co-authors);
- the division of labor within the teams plays out (e.g., see paper 53);
- often indeed Gino seems to have been the sole provider of the data (especially in the early years); this is eerily reminiscent of Stapel’s practices a few years earlier.
To the extent that the M-CaP has shone a light on all this, it has fulfilled an important purpose. It also has delineated to some extent the swamp that needs to be drained. But the next step needs to be for more data to be posted that are currently not even though they seem available. And, no, it is not bullying to ask for these data given the reputational hit behavioral science (the “field”), and adjacent areas, have taken and will continue to take until this swamp has been drained once and for all.
It will take a while for all the gems to be dug out but it seems not too early to conclude that this whole ecology is knee-deep in the hoopla. How much we won’t know before all authors in this space have posted their data, or at least made them in principle accessible. …
And, no, it is simply not correct to argue:
We have done some simple analyses on the information provided and, just as one silver lining, a significant minority of the papers (about 40%) contain no studies handled by Gino. These papers can be treated just like any other paper despite having Gino as a co-author on them.
This is not a silver lining; it’s an ill-advised attempt at deflection; Gino got that right.
At this point the whole Ariely — Gino network (including Brooks and Schroeder) is under suspicion, as they should because they allowed this whole scheme to go on for more than a decade as we now have reason to believe.
I could not agree more with this tweet, posted in response to this tweet by one of the drivers behind the M-CaP (JS):
It is of course not just data availability that is at stake. It is about:
=> the design and implementation of studies, i.e. appropriate experimental practices.
=> the pre-registration of hypotheses and analysis plan
=> the hands-on involvement of the experimenter
In other words, outright fraud is but the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Shady questionable research practices are as much to worry about. Not that this any news, see this entry (and the commentary here) on Gelman’s Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science in 2016: Clarke’s Law: Any sufficiently crappy research is indistinguishable from fraud. And the sequel to it: Clarke’s Law: Any sufficiently crappy research is indistinguishable from fraud (pizza gate edition).
I submit that the poor replicability of studies in the Ariely-Gino-et al ecology, and for that matter in marketing, is a consequence of the pre-vailing experimental and statistical practices as well as a lack of proper theorizing.
It’s an interesting question why and how “this goofy psychology research” has become so popular, and Gelman (and various commentators) has (have) given answers to that question worth a read. Says Gelman,
The answer is that there has been a sort of transubstantiation, whereby the success (such as it was) of scientific studies had the effect of elevating the researchers involved into a higher state, granting them authority so that their evidence-free speculations were given the status of scientific findings.
We have been learning that the success (such as it was) of scientific studies seems to have been in too many cases undeserved and damaging for the science enterprise as such. And, unfortunately, we are far away from understanding how many folks in this ecology have undeserved reputations. (Recall Hardisty’s call on what needs to be done now.) But … surely it is time to reflect on silly enablers like Poets&Quants and their pathetic 50Thinkers ranking of “influential business professors”.
If viability and visibility (and jet-set life, fat speaking fees, interviews with big outlets, and well-paying consulting gigs) become the kpis du jour, no one should be surprised that sound science gets hi-jacked. It is simply not good enough to clamor for rigor and relevance if the reality is starkly different.
To once again say the self-evident, we need a complete auditing of all those in the Ariely — Gino network and those that have become sellebrities. It would also be progress to agree on the number of retractions that should bar someone from becoming any kind of gate-keeper (e.g. editor at a journal): Two? Three?
Back to Gino. She complained that she was singled out. Well, yes. But …given all her accusatory statements (about defamation and discrimination and procedural failures) and her lawsuit have set her up for this treatment. At this point she has been brutally slapped down on her defamation claims, both regarding the Harvard and the Data Colada defendants to succeeded with their motion’s to dismiss the whole silly suit (Harvard and Data Colada). Surprisingly, Gino took to her LinkedIn page to celebrate this event: “Recently, the U.S. District Court ruled in my favor, allowing key components of my case against Harvard to move forward.”
Well, that is a curious reading of Judge Joun’s Memorandum at best. I guess there is a reason why Gino turned off comments on her post.
What Gino omits is this:
“For the reasons below, the Harvard Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Data Colada Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
Judge Joun’s Memorandum makes for fascinating reading. I am not a lawyer but … (here is my summary):
All defamation claims have been dismissed. Often in damning and no uncertain terms. What’s left for the “Harvard Defendants” is the claims around contract violation and procedural irregularities. I doubt they will go anywhere. Gino and her lawyers have made much of the alleged switch in policies from the 2013 Research Integrity Policy to the 2021 Interim Policy and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Conduct, this latter based apparently on federal guidelines. Alas, the 2013 policy gives the Dean considerable leeway in the way s/he deals with such allegations (see p. 6 of the Decision), which includes arguably the creation of such Interim Policy. Time will tell what the good judge makes of it …
My bet was that Gino would lose the defamation suits and my bet remains that she will all lose the remaining parts of her suit. (Nothing like a testable hypothesis, no?) We will know in early 2026, if Gino sticks around that long. As it is, her attempt to back out of her suit via alternative dispute resolution seems to have been rejected by Harvard.
As the one who filed a lawsuit to instill fear in good-faith data sleuths, it is rich for her to comment:
Unfortunately, though, the MCAP is raising a lot of fear. Some collaborators told me they fear excessive scrutiny into their work, motivated by animus and directed to certain groups of people (women more so than men). They fear becoming targets of false accusations. They fear the behavioral science field lost its way by having scholars accusing others instead of engaging in dialogue. I don’t think these fears will make behavioral science better.
27 March 2025
Bazerman on that infamous 2012 PNAS article by Shu, Mazar, Ariely, Gino, and himself. Lessons (to be) learned.
An Insider’s Perspective on How to Reduce Fraud in the Social Sciences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 March 2025
9 May 2025
Data Colada have asked the court for sanctions because Gino filed knowingly a frivolous and unjustified lawsuit meant to intimidate them. Sanction suggested: DC’s “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”
gov.uscourts.mad.259933.99.0_1.pdf
https://lnkd.in/g3v6ZBzg
27 May 2025
Harvard has revoked Gino’s tenure and effectively kicked her out. NBC report.
29 May 2025
Gino maintains her innocence. In light of the evidence (including the forensic evidence commissioned by Harvard), this statement seems outright delusional:
“From the start, I have said that I did not commit any academic misconduct and I want to reconfirm that statement,” Gino tells Poets&Quants.
15 July 2025
A couple of interesting developments in the Gino saga in recent days.
(Thanks Quentin Andre for the heads-up.)
First, the Data Colada folks’ attempt to claw back legal expenses (see 9 May 2025 update above) because of Gino’s ill-advised, frivolous and punitive defamation suit against them (which was rejected a while ago) was rejected by the judge. See The Harvard Crimson write-up.
Second, Harvard has filed a suit against Gino asserting that her claim on her website (Francesca vs Harvard) that HBS analyzed the “wrong data file” in their investigation, and that a “real file” proved her innocence, was fabricated by Gino and thus that Gino’s claim was defamatory. Seriously. For the astonishing details see pp. 144–149 here.
You can’t make this shit up.
4 August 2025
Gino, Plaintiff, files an amended complaint (91 pages) against PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, SRIKANT DATAR, JOHN DOES 1–10, AND JANE DOES 1–10, Defendants. With a witness statement by Pisano and Further Arguments of Professor Gino Submitted by Lawrence Lessig. Gino lays out her entire case, including allegations of discrimination, breach of contract, and procedural unfairness. The Pisano statement is bla but the Lessig missive might generate enough obfuscation (and even legitimate procedural questions) that it might sow enough doubt in the judge’s mind. Lessig argues essentially that 3 of the 4 cases should never have been brought because they were covered by time limitations, and that the one remaining case that would have warranted investigation was flawed because the Harvard defendants did not give Gino a fair chance to defend herself. There is lots of details here that the good judge in this matter will have to spend plenty of time to wade through and sort out as (ir)relevant. I don’t envy the judge. It’s become quite the mess.
This story from Poets & Quants, a week later, is based on the amended complaint filed by Gino.
18 August 2025
Defendants President and Fellows of Harvard College and Srikant Datar (together, “Harvard”) submit an Answer responding to the numbered paragraphs in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, filed on August 4, 2025 (Doc. №126). 165 pages. Plus a brief motion (4 pages) to dismiss with prejudice Count VIII of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, Doc. №126, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plus a memorandum of law (13 pages) in support of its Partial Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Francesca Gino (“Plaintiff”).
Keep that popcorn hot.
2 January 2026
Gino appears to be a victim of some unintentional data errors made by some of the research associates that assisted her in her research as well as scammer(s) who earned fees for answering various surveys that led to corrupted data sets for some of her papers (behavioral science researcher often use sites like Mechanical Turk (http://mturk.com) where random members of the public can earn fees for filling out surveys which are used as sources of data).
He relies heavily on Lawrence Lessig’s four-part podcast. Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at the Harvard Law School and has long defended Gino against the Data Colada accusations and critiqued Harvard for its handling of the situation.
Among the interesting revelations in his long X post is this:
When Francesca reached out to me in June of 2024 for help, I was sufficiently compelled to do so. We have been funding her legal and expert costs since that time, and we will provide whatever resources she needs to clear her name.
The problem with big institutions is that they are massive bureaucracies which occasionally put aside the core principles on which they are founded because they are embarrassed, because they are busy, and/or it is easier to ignore the harm they may cause to the little guy in the interest of protecting their reputation and/or avoiding further distraction to leadership. They also often assume that the little guy will eventually give up and/or run out of resources to keep fighting.
I am going to make sure that doesn’t happen here.
Stay tuned …
3 January 2026
Replying to
Been considering coming back, but if you mean do discuss the @BillAckman thing, there is almost nothing factual to debate there. The closest is the chinese scammers story. Which Gino said years ago, @lessig has repeated, and I would happily respond to if they shared the data.
5 January 2026
The Chronicle’s Stephanie Lee is flagging this development in a fact-based recounting of what happened so far in this saga.
7 January 2026
Grok, when prompted offers this assessment:
Tell us what you think about this post [Ackman’s X missive]. Do not mince words.
Bill Ackman’s post is a self-righteous, novella-length rant that’s equal parts compelling whistleblowing and billionaire ego trip. He’s spot-on about the horrors of institutional railroading — Harvard sounds like a kangaroo court here, with gag orders, sneaky policy changes mid-investigation, destroyed evidence, and a last-minute expert swap that screams “we’re desperate to win.” If even half of what he describes is true, it’s a damning indictment of how elite universities prioritize their pristine image over basic fairness, turning due process into a farce. Ackman’s personal parallels to his own SEC ordeal add credibility; he’s not wrong that powerful entities often crush individuals to avoid bad PR, and Gino’s case reeks of that.
That said, Ackman’s not some impartial truth-seeker — he’s a Harvard alum with a grudge, fresh off his Claudine Gay takedown, and he’s bankrolling Gino’s defense like it’s his new hobby. The evidence from Data Colada (who nailed anomalies in four of her papers) and Harvard’s unsealed report looks pretty ironclad: data manipulation in studies from 2012–2020, not just “unintentional errors” from RAs or Mechanical Turk scammers as Ackman spins it. Gino’s innocence claims feel like a stretch, especially for a dishonesty expert caught in this irony trap. Blaming underlings or bots doesn’t erase the patterns of fraud that multiple investigations confirmed.
Overall, this exposes Harvard’s hypocrisy (firing Gino while keeping Gay on payroll? Come on), but Ackman’s “Veritas” crusade feels more like vengeance than justice. If Gino’s truly innocent, great — let the lawsuit play out. But based on the facts, she’s probably guilty, and Ackman’s just amplifying noise to stick it to his alma mater again. Props for not backing down, though; the guy’s got balls.
31 January 2026
The Duke Chronicle reports that Dan Ariely had a longstanding friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, as evidenced in the newly released Epstein files.
2 February 2026
The man himself gives us his take on his connection with Jeffrey Epstein. Turns out not quite truthfully.
7 February 2026
The Duke Chronicle reports that Duke is going to shutter 3 research centers, including Dan Ariely’s Center for Advanced Hindsight. Pure coincidence we are being told.
24 June 2026
Andrew King (Questrom Chair in Strategy and Innovation, Boston University) posts on his LinkedIn page about how he suddenly got pulled into this whole mess.
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗱’𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗽𝗼𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗮 𝗚𝗶𝗻𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲
My wife called to me. A constable was at the door.
He handed me a subpoena to appear for a deposition in the case of Francesca Gino v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Srikant Datar.
The subpoena puzzled us. I don’t believe I’ve ever met Francesca Gino, and I am certainly not an expert on her case. Why not call me or email me with any questions? …
The reason for the subpoena became clear.
Harvard’s lawyers asked pointed questions about my allegations of research misconduct against HBS professor 𝗚𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗳𝗲𝗶𝗺 — and they seemed interested in how those allegations compared with the ones against Francesca Gino.
A lawyer later explained the logic. In a case like this, one side may try to show that similar situations have been treated differently.
Here, both Harvard Business School professors have been accused of research misconduct. Yet only Gino lost her tenure and her position at Harvard.
Why?
At the time of my deposition, I had not given that question much thought. But nothing focuses the mind like a deposition.
So, over the next few posts I will consider:
• Do the complaints satisfy Harvard’s standards for research misconduct?
• Is there evidence of a pattern?
• Are the allegations similarly serious?
• And any other questions that emerge.
3 July 2026
Simonsohn (of DataColada fame) alerts the world, in a DataColada post authored by himself, to this document (Document #222) in the matter Gino vs Harvard, the latter having hired an expert to prove that Gino seems to have planted a doctored file to prove her innocence very publicly on a website she created. Harvard, having been sued for defamation among other things, has since filed a counterclaim alleging that Gino defamed Harvard by making certain false statements.
From the expert’s report (Document #222, linked in the first comment):
“5. My rate is $650 per hour, depending on the services provided. My fees are not contingent on the outcome of this case. …
70. Based on the available forensic evidence, I can conclude with a high degree of professional certainty that Gino, or someone with access to Gino’s devices, accounts, and passwords, manually altered the metadata of the 2023 Cover-Up File and the July 16 OG File on a device which Gino failed to produce in time for my analysis in this report, likely the Undisclosed Personal Laptop. I can further conclude that once Gino had manually altered the metadata of the 2023 Cover-Up File, she placed the file on the HBS Laptop, in the process irrevocably deleting Document #3 from the HBS Laptop by navigating to the directory where Document #3 was located and confirming that she wanted to overwrite and destroy that file with the 2023 Cover-Up File. Finally, after she had placed the 2023 Cover-Up File on the HBS Laptop, she then uploaded the July 16 OG File to Google Drive from another device — possibly the Undisclosed Personal Laptop — and shared it with at least one person.”
Ah, those pesky RAs — always good for some mischief.
If Harvard’s claim is true (and it sure looks like it) then Gino seems in for a world of hurt … (financially and reputationally) …
Surely to be continued …
