Yes, I copy-pasted that comment because this is my tenth time commenting on guzey's critiques, and I'm tired of writing new ones.

I still don't think that trimming a graph in a way that doesn't even change the conclusion of the sentence that refers to it (having less than 8 hours of sleep increases injury risk, and it's still true upon included the omitted bar, which barely even changes the average) is worth trashing an entire 300 page book. Academia isn't about following a set of rigid rules, as if it were some endless high school project. It's about finding the truth, and I've seen no evidence that this was harmed at all here.

I agree that academia isn't only about following a set of rigid rules, but following rigid rules is certainly partly what academia is about. For example, you must include all data. Omitting data is research misconduct.

> I still don't think that trimming a graph in a way that doesn't even change the conclusion of the sentence that refers to it … is worth trashing an entire 300 page book.

You're strawmanning. The trimming is simply the most obvious of many errors found in a single chapter. There are other known errors as well as (probably) unknown errors.

That said, I think we should be forgiving when people make mistakes as long as they own up to them. Neither the author, the publisher nor the university have demonstrated much of a commitment to research integrity in this case. That's my main complaint.