[Goose]

But when one becomes the President of a leading research university the standards go up.  As you say, it is not a good system, and we need leadership to change it and improve it.  That leadership needs to start at the top--and there is nowhere in the world closer to the top than a President of a premier research university.  Instead, we have leadership that is, by example and association, affirming the slimier side of the current broken system.

I agree that those in leadership positions have to aspire to a "higher standard". The problem is that as far as I know nobody has found a way that all the author's on a paper can be "sure" all the data is correct unless they themselves physically verified all the experiments in person. Doing so would bring research to a standstill. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact the number of publications as either a first or last author is used as a metric of "success". This is the kind of success that gets you "important" jobs. In addition, being the first author on a paper is often considered necessary to "meaningfully" complete your PhD (even if the paper is published in a third-tier journal). I am not sure how this system can be "reformed" and still function. The only thing I can suggest is post warning labels on all journal articles saying the authors cannot vouch for all the data contained therein, which isn't exactly a solution :-). Given that, while MTL falling on his sword may be a nice gesture, I am not sure it would really change things one iota.

Reminds me of the current state of college football (except in slow motion).

[Goose]

But when one becomes the President of a leading research university the standards go up.  As you say, it is not a good system, and we need leadership to change it and improve it.  That leadership needs to start at the top--and there is nowhere in the world closer to the top than a President of a premier research university.  Instead, we have leadership that is, by example and association, affirming the slimier side of the current broken system.

I agree that those in leadership positions have to aspire to a "higher standard". The problem is that as far as I know nobody has found a way that all the author's on a paper can be "sure" all the data is correct unless they themselves physically verified all the experiments in person. Doing so would bring research to a standstill. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact the number of publications as either a first or last author is used as a metric of "success". This is the kind of success that gets you "important" jobs. In addition, being the first author on a paper is often considered necessary to "meaningfully" complete your PhD (even if the paper is published in a third-tier journal). I am not sure how this system can be "reformed" and still function. The only thing I can suggest is post warning labels on all journal articles saying the authors cannot vouch for all the data contained therein, which isn't exactly a solution :-). Given that, while MTL falling on his sword may be a nice gesture, I am not sure it would really change things one iota.

Reminds me of the current state of college football (except in slow motion).