인용이 많은 논문에서 허위 주장과 수정 부재, 그리고 학계의 무대응

A highly-cited Management Science paper claiming superior performance from sustainable companies used undisclosed analytical methods, yet the journal, affiliated universities, and research integrity offices have uniformly refused corrections and accountability. This case exposes systemic failures in academic self-regulation, with peer review unable to catch methodological fraud and institutions prioritizing self-protection over scientific integrity. The discussion highlights how external mechanisms—public criticism, AI tools for verification (Claude), and alternative publishing platforms—have become necessary substitutes for failed internal accountability structures.