I hope this commenter was being facetious.
With paylines around 5-percentile, the only way to have a shot at having a proposal approved is to quite simply fake data.
and I hope this other commenter was just wising off in frustration.
Certainly in my field the proportion of cheaters at the top venues seems to have increased the harder it is to get in. In fact, in one specific venue that shall remain nameless in my estimation over half of the papers contain some fake data.
Don't get me wrong. I am concerned about cheating in science. I am convinced that the contingencies that affect the careers of individuals scientists is a significant motivating factor in data fraud. I am not naive.
but for today, I wish to object to this normalization behavior. It is not normal to cheat in science. Data faking is NOT standard old stuff that everybody is doing.
"Everybody does it."
This is one of the standard defenses of the cheater pants. It is the easy justification we have seen time and time again in the revelations of performance-enhancing drug use in professional sports. It is the excuse of the data faker as well.
Consequently it is imperative that we do not leave the impression of normalcy unchallenged.
It is not the norm. Faking is not endemic to science. It may be more common than we would like. It may be more common than we estimate. But it is not normal.
Despite claims, it is not necessary. I have more than one grant score that was better than the 5th percentile and I didn't have to fake any data to get those. So that first claim is wrong for sure. It is not required to fake data.