Catch DEI - Chapter 1

My first attempt at literature.

By Peter Banks · · Updated · Read on Substack

Summary: The essay recounts a transformative conference of the Applied Micro Business Physiognomy field where Dr. Ash proposes pivoting from new research toward replication studies to address a mounting crisis in scholarly credibility. The field, founded on an 1898 study by Smith et al. linking facial physiognomy to business metrics, has become plagued by retracted papers, fraud, and methodological failures. After revealing evidence of widespread negligence in peer review, Dr. Ash calls for researchers to refocus on validating foundational results under contemporary scrutiny. The conference unanimously adopts this replication-focused agenda and establishes institutional funding and editorial policies to support the initiative.

Hancock School of Business and Creative Destruction - Williamson Hall

As people began to settle down in Williamson Hall the sounds of quiet conversation filled the spacious room. Hushed whispers blended to create a wall of white noise. 

Clearing his voice into the microphone Dr. Ash stood on a carpeted platform in the front center. 

“I just want to start by saying thank you so much for coming out to the annual ASSBURN1 conference. You will be hearing more in the coming days but I cannot wait for everyone to see what we have in store for you.” 

He paused and the room was filled with the sound of short polite clapping. 

“If you look at the table in front of you, each of you should have a piece of paper with the itinerary for this year's conference. We made the irregular move this year of not sending the itinerary in advance and ask that everyone refrain from sharing it outside of this room.”

While saying this Dr. Ash held up a copy of the itinerary. Papers quietly shuffled. 

“As you can see we will not be having any seminars this time around. Those of you that expected to be invited to present and did not receive an invitation I hope you can see you are not alone.”

Professional laughter barked out but the attendee's eyes began to look around. Across the room, people shifted with visible discomfort. Whatever was about to happen was not what they had signed up for. 

“I’m going to try and cut to the chase. In this room is the chair and most highly cited 3 professors from every major research institution globally. This room represents the top of the top in terms of what this field has to offer the world” 

Again polite laughter and a smattering of claps. Even a few friendly back slaps could be seen. 

However, our field of Applied Micro Business Physiognomy has been suffering from a major replication crisis. Last month across the Top 3 journals a total of 5 of the 20 most recent publications have been forced to be retracted due to serious accusation of scholarly impropriety.”

At these words, they became completely silent. Blood appeared to drain from the faces of almost every attendee. Dr. Ash continued speaking unperturbed.

“Of course, this is a complicated topic. I myself have had 3 recent publications withdrawn after a coding error was discovered. Candidly I’m not surprised as like many of you I entered this career simply because I didn’t know what else to do with my life.”

A woman shrieked but otherwise, the room continued to be totally silent. The shock was slowly transforming into rage.

“Here at Hancock, we have been facing year-over-year budget cuts as both the number and quality of our PhD students have declined. In many ways, you can think of this year's conference as an attempt to ‘right the ship’ so to speak.” 

The silence was being gradually replaced with muttering. Dr. Ash realized he had about 30 seconds left before Williamson Hall was transformed into pandemonia.

“This is why I propose a new approach. Instead of trying to expand the scope of research, we should instead focus on those topics in which we have the strongest expertise. A new era of Replication must emerge where we confirm the results that matter instead of wasting our time chasing unicorns.”

Professors were beginning to stand up and shout. Soon even with the microphone, he wouldn’t be able to be heard.

Dropping the itinerary and grasping the microphone with both of his hands Dr. Ash screamed above the growing chaos. 

“I refuse to write another line of code! And I’ll be damned if I give up this Chair!”

Silence fell like a curtain. Lowering his voice again he spoke shakily. 

“Everyone let's be honest. Since the first Smith et al. 1898 paper2 showing the relationship between bone structure and free cash flow, we have been doing nothing but dancing around a central idol. Look at just this list of papers published in the last 5 years.”

“Who here even reads papers anymore when they write a referee report? I’ve been sending them to Ph.D. students for years as part of their education and recently I realized they don’t even read them either.

“As the editor of SNEERR3, I cannot even begin to articulate how many times I’ve received 3 referee reports.”

Saying this he held up free fingers, pinky held by thumb. 

“Each. One. Identical.” 

With each word, he lowered a finger. 

“So… let's just stop pretending. Instead, I propose we each show that the basic results in Smith et al. still hold in the modern world.”

For the first time since he had begun talking, Dr. Ash stood silent. 

Time seemed to slow to a pause as each of the professors and Ph.D. students realized what Dr. Ash was suggesting. Sitting at a small table in the corner a group of Japanese professors were the first to speak. 

Dr. Sato Professor Emeritus at the University of Tokyo and 7x distinguished teaching faculty despite having never taught a class stood up.  

“Dear Dr. Ash. Are you suggesting we pivot to replication as a tool to increase the field credibility?” 

Dr. Ash smiled

“Yes… Dr. Yamamoto is that right? That is exactly what I’m calling for” 

Bowing slightly Dr. Sato sat down. Once again the room broke out in hushed conversation. Every table discussed what had just taken place. For almost an hour Dr. Ash and the other professors in charge of hosting ASSBURN sat looking around the room. Sound came in waves as conversations turned jovial and then aggressive. Looking to his right Dr. Ash caught the eyes of a PhD student standing against the wall. His face was stretched in an almost comical smile, so wide it appeared to touch his ears. Dr. Ash knew why he was smiling. 

Standing up again he coughed into his microphone and spoke. 

“A pivot of this scale requires consensus so I wanted to hold a vote before we proceed. Unless this is unanimous we should call off the rest of the conference. If you support the proposed change please raise your hands” 

Every single hand in the room went up. 

After the 3-day conference, the following document was produced. 

Research Modernity and Replication

In an unprecedented move within our scholarly community, we hereby announce a shift towards a foundational approach aimed at reinforcing the integrity and credibility of our field. The Annual Conference of Applied Micro Business Physiognomy Researchers (ASSBURN) has unveiled a transformative agenda that underscores the urgency of addressing the replication crisis and scholarly impropriety that have cast shadows over our collective work.

In a world of high-impact research and ever-changing Business practices, it is of paramount importance that every field confirms the major results - which form the bedrock of our research - are strong.

The Crisis at Hand

Recent revelations have brought to light that a significant fraction of research within the realm of Applied Micro Business Physiognomy (AMBP), a field that traces its origins to seminal work by Smith et al. (1898), is plagued by issues of replicability and ethical concerns. This builds on a long series of critiques from major news publications about the foundational results of the field. Without a strong basis, it is impossible to battle these uninformed criticisms. The issue of replication is common across all fields of academia however AMBP will continue its long tradition of cutting edge research by directly addressing any concerns. Because this crisis not only undermines the trust in our scientific endeavors but threatens the very fabric of our society and civilization.

A Call to Arms

It is with this backdrop that we call upon every member of our global community to embark on a journey of rigorous replication studies. Our collective mission is to reaffirm the veracity of key findings that have shaped our understanding of the intersection between physiognomy and business microdynamics. This initiative is not a step back but a leap forward, acknowledging that the strength of our field lies in the reliability and ethical conduct of our research.

Scope of Replication:

  • Historical Baseline: Revisit and replicate pivotal studies, beginning with the landmark study by Smith et al. (1898), to ensure that their conclusions stand firm under contemporary scrutiny.

  • Data: Pursue an aggressive policy of ensuring data used in prior studies has been robustly cleaned.

  • Methodological Rigor: Employ state-of-the-art methodologies and statistical analyses to ensure the highest level of precision and reliability in foundational results.

Collaborative Effort

This initiative demands a collaborative spirit, transcending institutional boundaries and geographic locales. We encourage the formation of replication consortia, bringing together researchers from diverse backgrounds and expertise to undertake this crucial work. Editors of SNEERR, FAC, and PEEN have all committed to only publishing high-quality replications until faith has been restored in the foundations of scientific research.

Funding and Publication Opportunities

Recognizing the resource-intensive nature of replication studies, a dedicated fund has been established to support these endeavors but this is just the start. Specifically, AMBP departments call on institutions to increase their funding to accommodate the essential nature of the replication crisis. This includes the expansion of research facilities to accommodate state-of-the-art replication laboratories.

Critically though without a strong investment in both the Ph.D. and current faculty research budget and an expansion of the scope of covered costs, it is impossible to make the crucial changes that are required to restore trust in our institutions.

Conclusion

Our field stands at a crossroads, facing challenges that question the very core of our scientific pursuit. Yet, it is in these moments of trial that we find opportunities for growth and reaffirmation. Let us unite under the banner of integrity, rigor, and ethical scholarship to steer our field toward a future where trust, reliability, and truth prevail.

1

ASSBURN: Association of Scientists, Scholars, Businessmen, Understanding, Research, and Networking

2

SmithA, SmithB, SmithC, and SmithD 1898: Published in the Journal of Racial Excellency headline result showed that Aryan facial features namely a Dolichocephalic skull - measured using the Cephalic Index - was associated strongly with higher free cash flows relative to managers with Brachycephalic skulls. The paper was considered a landmark of its time and has since been culturally translated by numerous academics. Applied Micro Business Physiognomy departments emerged after SmithB gained widespread academic acclaim. Note: SmithA made serious accusations against SmithB regarding the original quality of the data. Claiming SmithB had discarded upwards of 90% of the observations for being outliers - this claim is uncontested only how the results would have changed is disputed. 

3

SNEERR: Studies in non-Verbal Economic Expressions and Related Research

Frequently asked questions

Why does Dr. Ash refuse to write another line of code during his address at the ASSBURN conference?

Dr. Ash expresses exasperation with the current state of research practices in his field and his commitment to maintaining his Chair position while refusing to perpetuate the existing research model. His statement reflects his determination to redirect the field toward replication rather than continue engaging in the flawed practices that have led to the replication crisis.

What specific relationship did the 1898 Smith et al. paper establish between skull morphology and business performance?

The Smith et al. 1898 paper, published in the Journal of Racial Excellency, claimed that managers with Dolichocephalic skulls (measured using the Cephalic Index) had significantly higher free cash flows compared to managers with Brachycephalic skulls. The paper was considered a landmark work that established the foundational basis for the entire Applied Micro Business Physiognomy field.

How did Dr. Ash discover that peer reviewers at SNEERR were not actually reading submitted papers?

As editor of SNEERR, Dr. Ash received three referee reports that were completely identical to each other, revealing that the reviewers had not actually engaged with the papers. He also discovered that PhD students he had been sending papers to as educational material were not reading them either, indicating a systemic problem with scholarly engagement.

What absurd correlations between physiognomy and business metrics are mocked in the papers Dr. Ash cites?

Dr. Ash lists several fictitious paper titles including 'Nose shape and Adjusted EBITDA: Evidence from a Congolese Mining Conglomerate,' 'Exogenous Variation in Jaw size and debt covenant renegotiation success,' 'Hand size and employee satisfaction,' and 'Skin Care routine and CEO compensation package convexity.' These examples illustrate how far the field had drifted into absurd pseudoscience.

Why has the Hancock School of Business experienced declining PhD student quality and budget cuts?

According to Dr. Ash, the field has suffered from a major replication crisis with multiple retracted publications, losing credibility and institutional support. The year-over-year budget cuts and declining number of PhD students are direct consequences of the loss of trust in the field's foundational research due to accusations of scholarly impropriety and data manipulation.

What data integrity concerns did SmithA raise against SmithB regarding the original 1898 study?

SmithA made serious accusations that SmithB had discarded upwards of 90% of the original observations from the 1898 dataset, classifying them as outliers. While this claim remains uncontested in the essay, it highlights the questionable data handling practices that undermined the credibility of the foundational paper and the entire field built upon it.

How many of the twenty most recent publications across the top three journals were retracted due to scholarly impropriety?

According to Dr. Ash's opening remarks at the conference, five of the twenty most recent publications in the top three journals were forced to retract due to serious accusations of scholarly impropriety. He also notes that he himself had three recent publications withdrawn after a coding error was discovered.

Which editors committed to publishing only high-quality replications until faith is restored in the field?

The editors of SNEERR, FAC, and PEEN all committed to restricting their journals to publish only high-quality replication studies until confidence in the foundations of scientific research has been restored. This editorial policy shift represents a coordinated institutional response to the replication crisis.

What was Dr. Yamamoto's interpretation of Dr. Ash's proposed shift toward replication as a field strategy?

Dr. Sato from the University of Tokyo (who is mistakenly referred to as Dr. Yamamoto by Dr. Ash) understood the proposal as calling for replication to be used as a tool to increase the field's credibility. His formal acknowledgment and support for this interpretation was the first verbal endorsement that helped shift the room's perspective from shock to consideration of the proposal.

Selected quotes

I refuse to write another line of code! And I'll be damned if I give up this Chair!
Dr. Ash makes an emotional declaration while defending his commitment to maintaining his position while rejecting the status quo research practices that have undermined the field.
Who here even reads papers anymore when they write a referee report? I've been sending them to Ph.D. students for years as part of their education and recently I realized they don't even read them either.
Dr. Ash critiques the widespread and systemic failure of peer reviewers to actually read the papers they are evaluating, revealing how deeply broken the scholarly review process has become.
Since the first Smith et al. 1898 paper showing the relationship between bone structure and free cash flow, we have been doing nothing but dancing around a central idol.
Dr. Ash identifies the foundational 1898 paper as the problematic center around which all subsequent research has revolved, suggesting the entire field is built on a flawed premise.
Nose shape and Adjusted EBITDA: Evidence from a Congolese Mining Conglomerate
Dr. Ash lists an absurd paper title as one example of the ridiculous and pseudoscientific research the field has been producing.
Let us unite under the banner of integrity, rigor, and ethical scholarship to steer our field toward a future where trust, reliability, and truth prevail.
The concluding call-to-action in the formal institutional document released after the conference, calling for renewed commitment to scientific standards.

Related topics

Replication Crisis · Academic Fraud · Scholarly Integrity · Peer Review Failures · Applied Micro Business Physiognomy · Pseudoscientific Research · Smith et al. 1898 Paper · Research Credibility · Faculty Conference · Physiognomy and Business · Retracted Publications · PhD Student Education · Journal Editorship · Research Methodology · Institutional Funding · Data Quality Standards · Scientific Ethics · Academic Institutions