First ... I'm totally with you.

Second, the correction, which is a terribly bitter pill to swallow, is that it is precisely this kind of person that would get to such a position, and it's a problem. The world over, Douglas Adams's paradox of democracy, that the type of person who seeks to be elected is by that very decision the kind of person you don't want to be elected, is basically at play everywhere, and we're not doing a good job of correcting for this bias/paradox across the board.

If you're not familiar with academic science and research, let me tell you that it gets incredibly political and feudal pretty quickly. Many people find academia, however high a view you might have of science and academia, a toxic place to be. I, for one, am not surprised at all and would bet that looking into any high academic office you'd find all sorts of dodgy things (though many less than outright fraud) all over the place.

The world is a scam

While this guy might not have, look at the Francesca Gino situation. Professor at Harvard and always is the spotlight with her studies finding odd results with almost certainty (p=<0.0001)

https://www.science.org/content/article/harvard-behavioral-scientist-aces-research-fraud-allegations

This is unfortunately commonplace in academia and doesn't surprise me at all.

$

the end

@diamat this is only surprising if you approach #academia and #science with a positive bias instead of objectivity.

I have not seen an actually convincing quality control or publishing standard.

It's all undocumented, learned behavior that gets approved or denied through unelected councils.

At least it's not e.g. students or readers of papers who do the voting.

Not saying there aren't good people doing good things. But the thing as a whole is incredibly and obviously shady.