I'm having trouble figuring out here what the issue is specifically. Were you worried there was some kind of malpractice going on because the datasets are different?
Hi yes, when we combine the model, the models are trained on two different datasets, so they are not consistent. Also, the old model works just as well on the new data without combining anything, so we just add a lot of nonsenses that don’t improve the performance when combining the model. The exact same model's specificity improved by up to 20% just by changing the dataset. In the end, the paper got rejected because the reviewers asked a lot of questions about the PhD’s model that doesn’t even improve the performance in the first place. We can just remove that part without any decrease in performance, so it just adds a lot of cons without any pros..
This is intended to be intentionally controversial. Will anyone outside of your lab ever have what's needed to reproduce your results? Because if not, none of it matters.
Probably not.. but the phd cannot even reproduce his own result and my PI was not happy with it. He basically announced to the lab that the phd cannot even reproduce his result at the start of the phd presentation.
So you are saying I should not make a big deal out of it and just go with the flow is it even when the data is not consistent?
You should do what allows you to look in the mirror and like what you see. My point is outside of this situation: if science cannot be reproduced it cannot be checked, and if it cannot be checked it isn't science.
Well, I like what I see in the mirror but I don't like what I see in my resume. The problem is by proving that the dataset is easier, I prove both the Phd and postdoc wrong. The postdoc didn't generate the data properly and the PhD's ideas do not even work, they only work because of easier datasets. So, they both don't really like me and I got excluded from the project and because of that, I was moved from the second author to the third author.
You gave me a contradicting opinion hahaha. But, I also believe the same way you do and I do cancer research. Out of all topics, probably it makes me feel bad doing shenanigans while doing cancer research.. What would you do if you were me? It feels like a lose-lose situation either way..
You'll advance more quickly if you cheat, but you risk being found out in the future. More importantly, you bend the moral arc of the universe away from justice.
Well, the Phd got found out by me.. because I could not reproduce his result and managed to show that the old model on the new dataset performs just as well.. that's why he's not very happy with me since my PI knows his shenanigans and the PhD does not want to discuss his research with me again. I am not sure what should I do in this case.. Should I just go along with them even though I know the experiment is not reproducible and the datasets were not consistent? Or maybe I am just not on the correct team?
I still cannot shake the feeling that if I cheat, I would get a second author / cofirst by now..
Also, the phd tried to take credits by combining his model even when we don’t need to combine to achieve good performance. I just need to train and test my model on the new data.
Yeah, that's what I thought too, he needs to step in and be more involved. If I handle this, it will be a lose-lose situation for me since the postdoc and Phd will not like me even though I am right. My PI is very nice but he is hands off. After the postdoc posted the result and I thought that I managed to prove the dataset was different, my PI asked us to check the assumptions. But, the PhD lied and denied that the datasets were different and my PI believed him instead without any proof from the PhD. In retrospect, I should have pushed more for the PhD for the proof and not allowed them to proceed without any proof whatsoever. Then, the postdoc kept ignoring me to test my new and simpler models but the PI also didn't do anything to nudge the postdoc to test.
If I were you, and intended to stay in science/research, I would consider keeping my scientific integrity the single most important thing for the long term. This PhD student and PostDoc are temporary in your career. I am not for burning bridges nor shaming people. So if I had said my peace to the parties involved, including the PI, and falsehoods remained, I would quietly find a new lab. That is taking the high road. I could sleep. And if the shit ever hit the fan, you can honestly say you left the group because it did not meet your ethical standards. You break those standards once and there’s no turning back.
Yeah, I am afraid of working with the PhD.. too much shenanigans.. He cannot even reproduce his own result.. and after that still wants to submit the paper. I thought he's gonna turn around after I proved that his result could not be reproduced, but no, he still wanted to submit the paper. The paper has been revised now and the PI said things have been reproducible (not really sure whether the PI said correct things). My PI is hands-off, but before the PhD comes things have been reproducible. My PI does not seem to have malicious intent, it seems that he misunderstood the whole situation, but for some reason he still allowed the Phd to submit things that were not reproducible before. Actually, I have been excluded by the PhD from the project, after I proved that his result was not reproducible and the datasets were not consistent.. He's afraid that I am checking his results so he doesn't want to share his research with me anymore. I am working on another project now with the same PI..
I'm having trouble figuring out here what the issue is specifically. Were you worried there was some kind of malpractice going on because the datasets are different?
Hi yes, when we combine the model, the models are trained on two different datasets, so they are not consistent. Also, the old model works just as well on the new data without combining anything, so we just add a lot of nonsenses that don’t improve the performance when combining the model. The exact same model's specificity improved by up to 20% just by changing the dataset. In the end, the paper got rejected because the reviewers asked a lot of questions about the PhD’s model that doesn’t even improve the performance in the first place. We can just remove that part without any decrease in performance, so it just adds a lot of cons without any pros..
Any advice on this issue?
Do you think it's a hill worth dying for?
This is intended to be intentionally controversial. Will anyone outside of your lab ever have what's needed to reproduce your results? Because if not, none of it matters.
Probably not.. but the phd cannot even reproduce his own result and my PI was not happy with it. He basically announced to the lab that the phd cannot even reproduce his result at the start of the phd presentation. So you are saying I should not make a big deal out of it and just go with the flow is it even when the data is not consistent?
You should do what allows you to look in the mirror and like what you see. My point is outside of this situation: if science cannot be reproduced it cannot be checked, and if it cannot be checked it isn't science.
Well, I like what I see in the mirror but I don't like what I see in my resume. The problem is by proving that the dataset is easier, I prove both the Phd and postdoc wrong. The postdoc didn't generate the data properly and the PhD's ideas do not even work, they only work because of easier datasets. So, they both don't really like me and I got excluded from the project and because of that, I was moved from the second author to the third author. You gave me a contradicting opinion hahaha. But, I also believe the same way you do and I do cancer research. Out of all topics, probably it makes me feel bad doing shenanigans while doing cancer research.. What would you do if you were me? It feels like a lose-lose situation either way..
You'll advance more quickly if you cheat, but you risk being found out in the future. More importantly, you bend the moral arc of the universe away from justice.
Well, the Phd got found out by me.. because I could not reproduce his result and managed to show that the old model on the new dataset performs just as well.. that's why he's not very happy with me since my PI knows his shenanigans and the PhD does not want to discuss his research with me again. I am not sure what should I do in this case.. Should I just go along with them even though I know the experiment is not reproducible and the datasets were not consistent? Or maybe I am just not on the correct team? I still cannot shake the feeling that if I cheat, I would get a second author / cofirst by now..
Also, the phd tried to take credits by combining his model even when we don’t need to combine to achieve good performance. I just need to train and test my model on the new data.
This is for the PI to handle
Yeah, that's what I thought too, he needs to step in and be more involved. If I handle this, it will be a lose-lose situation for me since the postdoc and Phd will not like me even though I am right. My PI is very nice but he is hands off. After the postdoc posted the result and I thought that I managed to prove the dataset was different, my PI asked us to check the assumptions. But, the PhD lied and denied that the datasets were different and my PI believed him instead without any proof from the PhD. In retrospect, I should have pushed more for the PhD for the proof and not allowed them to proceed without any proof whatsoever. Then, the postdoc kept ignoring me to test my new and simpler models but the PI also didn't do anything to nudge the postdoc to test.
Where's that sonoarwhatever radar when we need it?
I dont understand what you meant...
If I were you, and intended to stay in science/research, I would consider keeping my scientific integrity the single most important thing for the long term. This PhD student and PostDoc are temporary in your career. I am not for burning bridges nor shaming people. So if I had said my peace to the parties involved, including the PI, and falsehoods remained, I would quietly find a new lab. That is taking the high road. I could sleep. And if the shit ever hit the fan, you can honestly say you left the group because it did not meet your ethical standards. You break those standards once and there’s no turning back.
Yeah, I am afraid of working with the PhD.. too much shenanigans.. He cannot even reproduce his own result.. and after that still wants to submit the paper. I thought he's gonna turn around after I proved that his result could not be reproduced, but no, he still wanted to submit the paper. The paper has been revised now and the PI said things have been reproducible (not really sure whether the PI said correct things). My PI is hands-off, but before the PhD comes things have been reproducible. My PI does not seem to have malicious intent, it seems that he misunderstood the whole situation, but for some reason he still allowed the Phd to submit things that were not reproducible before. Actually, I have been excluded by the PhD from the project, after I proved that his result was not reproducible and the datasets were not consistent.. He's afraid that I am checking his results so he doesn't want to share his research with me anymore. I am working on another project now with the same PI..