This statement was demonstrably and verifiably false. The data provided to HBS by Professor Gino’s former research assistant was in an Excel spreadsheet and was not the “original dataset” for Study 1. The “original dataset” for Study 1 had been collected on paper in 2010, a fact that was clearly documented in the original 2012 PNAS Paper.
Data Colada also knew that the so-called “duplicate observation” was not evidence of tampering, as it was equally likely that the same index card was used for participants’ IDs or the research assistant who conducted the study entered the ID twice—an honest error.
Importantly, Data Colada also acknowledged in this recent blog post that it knows that an author of a study is not always the person responsible for handling or collecting the data and, therefore, is also not always the person responsible for any resulting “data irregularities.” See id. Doubtless, as behavioral scientists at leading universities, Data Colada knew or had reason to know that Professor Gino works with research assistants and others and may not have been the person responsible for any perceived anomalies in studies she authored.