I saw this group many years back that I suspect was cherry picking their data. The students would purposefully get as little data as possible. Enough to compare it to a model, but not enough to to negate the head researchers claims. When I would go and do the experiment more thoroughly, it was obvious the data and the claims were not aligned. When I would discuss the research with the head of the group, they would say that any given student didn't know what they were doing. But they had no shortage of publications from any of their students. There was one paper that had a systematic source of error in the experiment, which when accounted for, completely negates the original claims. The source of error eventually became main stream. I have never confirmed my suspicions that the data was purposely cherry picked. I never confronted the head researcher , and will never do so because it would hurt my career too. By separating the data collection, analysis, and writing, I think they had a three "three wise monkeys" thing going on". Where no one can get accused of behaving unscrupulous. Each party can foist it off on a "mis communication" of the other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys I still don't know if this was all in my head and I'm being paranoid, or if there was something unscrupulous going on. Does anyone have similar experiences?