That's weak-- accused. Also, who cares if they did lie? Knowing about dishonesty is not the same as positioning oneself as a beacon for morality. This is not front-page HN worthy material.
Reading the material proof and Harvard's reaction, the "accused of" is merely journalistic caution for a red-handed case.
> Also, who cares if they did lie
They didn't just lie, they tampered with collected data used for scientific research, harming their co-authors' work and reputation and giving fake leads to their field of study, thus wasting their peers' time spent on reproducing the case. It may also have had an effect on promotions that their peers should have gotten and on the way people got managed, based on these behavioral studies.
Also the evidence collection displayed in another reply is technically interesting.
This blog has a lot of detailed posts if you're interested in this sort of thing, deep dives into how you find fake data (helpful if you need to fake your data better!).
