kuro5hin has a story on Lott/Rosh. There is even an on-line poll. At the time of writing the results were:
| John Lott is.. | |
|---|---|
| .. a fraud. | 50% |
| .. a good researcher who made some mistakes. | 5% |
| .. victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy. | 13% |
| .. transgendered. | 30% |
Of course, the results from an on-line poll like this have no more scientific validity than Lott's 98% statistic.
Blogroots also mentions the unmasking of Rosh. The High Road (a pro-gun message board) has a discussion on Lott. I think this comment is interesting:
My problem with Lott now is his "the dog ate my research" story. I laughed when Bellesiles told that story because I didn't believe it for an instant. It's not so funny now, for the same reason. Incorrectly citing Gary Kleck is another problem. These aren't questions about his tactics or about Mary. It's about his data and how careful he is with the facts.Lott says he's trying to replicate the lost experiment. Even if it confirms the lost one, I'll be more skeptical this time, and I'm someone who has repeatedly cited Lott's work. I want to believe him, but I just can't. Entire research projects don't disappear without a trace in a computer crash, even if you're stupid enough to fail to back up such a large amount of important work.