https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=0000-0002-1723-7560 2026-05-24T22:22:42Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.11 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:1b777e40-9d7f-4ef4-a601-6be70c9e386a&diff=7153 2021-07-06T11:01:28Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=University Investigation Finds Misconduct by Bone Researcher with 23 Retractions<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case. Allegations of data fabrication and authorship issues have led to the retraction of a large volume of papers authored by a bone researcher.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/06/university-investigation-finds-misconduct-bone-researcher-23-retractions/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=6-12-2017<br /> |Has Location=Japan<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Authorship; Plagiarism; Faked Data; Japan Retractions; Misconduct of Investigations<br /> |Related To Research Area=Basic Medicine<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:20755beb-0432-483f-b1a7-2c28f4a84964&diff=7152 2021-07-06T10:56:14Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=The AAP report on circumcision: Bad science + bad ethics = bad medicine<br /> |Is About=This blog describes some of the arguments against the case of the AAP's (American Academy of Paediatrics) change of policy's position in relation to infant male circumcision. The author of the blog suggests that whilst the evidence remains the same, institutions can 'cherry pick' findings to support their own conclusions.<br /> |Important For=Human rights defenders; Clinical ethics consultants; lecturers; research students<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=AAP<br /> |Has Timepoint=27/5/2013<br /> |Has Location=USA<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Cherry picking<br /> |Related To Research Area=LS 07.11 - Medical ethics<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:027f3ad7-d7ba-4926-b21f-a8d1b8df4a00&diff=7151 2021-07-06T10:54:56Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=‘Caught in the act’: Veterinary researcher caught fabricating gene data, resigns from university job<br /> |Is About=The case presents a veterinary microbiology researcher who was caught fabricating data on sequencing. The researcher was working under two grants.<br /> |Important Because=There are fewer examples of fabrication of data or results in veterinary research; this case is one of such examples.<br /> |Important For=All stakeholders in research; researchers; Academic institutions; Funding agencies<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/12/16/caught-in-the-act-veterinary-researcher-caught-fabricating-gene-data-resigns-from-university-job/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=Ryan Evanoff<br /> |Has Timepoint=16/12/2020<br /> |Has Location=USA<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=data fabrication<br /> |Related To Research Area=LS 06.13 - Veterinary medicine and infectious diseases in animals<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:87b2ae47-676d-4ddd-8a53-666746c9ce1b&diff=7150 2021-07-06T10:30:16Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Major indexing service rejects appeals by two suppressed journals<br /> |Is About=In this factual case study, two academic journals were suppressed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) because they allegedly have excessively self-cited in order to raise their impact factor.<br /> |Important Because=This is an interesting case for several reasons. Firstly, it shows that allegations of misconduct are not restricted to individual researchers and their institutions but also to journal editors and publishers; although such cases have so far been less frequently encountered, they are now becoming increasingly common. <br /> <br /> Secondly, the specific allegations may appear more difficult to investigate and/or prove as misconduct. One of these two journals, in this specific case, maintain that there was no intention to inflate the impact factor and any excessive self-citation was due to a 'niche' area where no many other journals publish on the topic. <br /> <br /> The case is also interesting and can stimulate discussions as to what is a good balance between broad and specialized referencing.<br /> |Important For=Editors; Journal editors; Journal publishers; All stakeholders in research; Research integrity trainers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/08/28/major-indexing-service-rejects-appeals-by-two-suppressed-journals/#more-120388<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:5980a54c-1816-499c-8410-7fea8865c89a<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=28/8/20<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Self citation<br /> |Related To Research Area=SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:5980a54c-1816-499c-8410-7fea8865c89a&diff=7149 2021-07-06T10:24:19Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Ten journals denied 2020 Impact Factors because of excessive self-citation or “citation stacking”<br /> |Is About=Clarivate has issued expression of concern to 11 journals after noticing some odd patterns in their contribution to JIF (journal impact factor) values. It also suppressed a further 10 for excessive self-citation. The journals suppressed did not receive an impact factor for 2020.<br /> |Important Because=The case, brought by Retraction Watch, is important as it signifies that all stages of research are important, and editors and publishers are nonetheless part of it.  <br /> |Important For=Authors; Reviewers; Editors; Journal editors; Journal publishers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/06/30/ten-journals-denied-2020-impact-factors-because-of-excessive-self-citation-or-citation-stacking/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:87b2ae47-676d-4ddd-8a53-666746c9ce1b<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=citation manipulation<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:5980a54c-1816-499c-8410-7fea8865c89a&diff=7148 2021-07-06T10:23:37Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Ten journals denied 2020 Impact Factors because of excessive self-citation or “citation stacking” |Is About=Clarivate has issued exp...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Ten journals denied 2020 Impact Factors because of excessive self-citation or “citation stacking”<br /> |Is About=Clarivate has issued expression of concern to 11 journals after noticing some odd patterns in their contribution to JIF (journal impact factor) values. It also suppressed a further 10 for excessive self-citation. The journals suppressed did not receive any impact factor for 2020.<br /> |Important Because=The case, brought by Retraction Watch, is important as it signifies that all stages of research are important, and editors and publishers are nonetheless part of it.  <br /> |Important For=Authors; Reviewers; Editors; Journal editors; Journal publishers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/06/30/ten-journals-denied-2020-impact-factors-because-of-excessive-self-citation-or-citation-stacking/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:87b2ae47-676d-4ddd-8a53-666746c9ce1b<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=citation manipulation<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:C7cf0111-5d60-418e-8194-b8252a3041ed&diff=7144 2021-07-05T13:44:51Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Confronting Research Misconduct in Citizen Science<br /> |Is About=This research paper&lt;ref&gt;Rasmussen, L.M., 2019. Confronting Research Misconduct in Citizen Science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1), p.10. DOI: &lt;nowiki&gt;http://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.207&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; presents two hypothetical scenarios on how citizen's science can be prone to accusations of research integrity violations.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=It is unusual to encounter cases of ethics violations on citizen's science and similar disciplines. The author raises some interesting points for discussion.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://theoryandpractice.citizenscienceassociation.org/articles/10.5334/cstp.207/#n2<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fraud<br /> |Related To Research Area=SH 02.07 - Political systems and institutions, governance; SH 01.05 - Political economy, institutional economics, law and economics<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:9004bac4-8ae3-49e0-bfef-19d46a67a1ba&diff=7143 2021-07-05T13:42:58Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Macchiarini may be dismissed from Karolinska; dean of research resigns<br /> |Is About=This is the factual case of a trachea transplant surgeon whose research and practice have made him famous for advancements in transplant medicine. Misconduct investigations, following allegations against him (e.g. for informed consent and relevant safeguarding issues), led to his dismissal.<br /> |Important Because=The case shows the extent of adverse consequences for researchers, patients and research institutes when proper ethical guidelines and practices are not followed.<br /> |Important For=Clinical researchers; Clinical ethics consultants<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/22/macchiarini-may-be-dismissed-from-karolinska-dean-of-research-resigns/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=Sweden<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:9004bac4-8ae3-49e0-bfef-19d46a67a1ba&diff=7142 2021-07-05T13:40:59Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Macchiarini may be dismissed from Karolinska; dean of research resigns |Is About=This is the factual case of a trachea transplant surgeo...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Macchiarini may be dismissed from Karolinska; dean of research resigns<br /> |Is About=This is the factual case of a trachea transplant surgeon whose research and practice have made him famous for advancements in transplant medicine. Misconduct investigations, following allegations against him (e.g. for informed consent and relevant safeguarding issues), led to his dismissal.<br /> |Important Because=The case shows the extent of adverse consequences for researchers, patients and research institutes when proper ethical guidelines and practices are not followed.<br /> |Important For=Clinical researchers; Clinical ethics consultants<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/22/macchiarini-may-be-dismissed-from-karolinska-dean-of-research-resigns/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:C7cf0111-5d60-418e-8194-b8252a3041ed&diff=7137 2021-07-04T12:53:46Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Confronting Research Misconduct in Citizen Science |Is About=This research paper&lt;ref&gt;Rasmussen, L.M., 2019. Confronting Research Miscond...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Confronting Research Misconduct in Citizen Science<br /> |Is About=This research paper&lt;ref&gt;Rasmussen, L.M., 2019. Confronting Research Misconduct in Citizen Science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1), p.10. DOI: &lt;nowiki&gt;http://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.207&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; presents two fictional hypothetical scenarios on how citizen's science can be prone to accusations of research integrity violations.<br /> |Important Because=It is unusual to encounter cases of ethics violations on citizen's science and similar disciplines. The author raises some interesting points for discussion.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://theoryandpractice.citizenscienceassociation.org/articles/10.5334/cstp.207/#n2<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fraud<br /> |Related To Research Area=SH 02.07 - Political systems and institutions, governance; SH 01.05 - Political economy, institutional economics, law and economics<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:14f1a369-7660-4176-8985-c4d58f85953c&diff=7136 2021-07-04T12:38:46Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Research Ethics – Official GRAD 5104 Blog - Blogs@VT |Is About=This is blog on research and publication ethics. As an example, it uses...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Research Ethics – Official GRAD 5104 Blog - Blogs@VT<br /> |Is About=This is blog on research and publication ethics. As an example, it uses the factual case of a researcher who intentionally fabricated/falsified data and manipulated images.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://blogs.lt.vt.edu/grad5104/research-ethics-7/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data fabrication and falsification<br /> |Related To Research Area=LS 01.02 - General biochemistry and metabolism; LS 05.03 - Neurochemistry and neuropharmacology<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:80c8e375-b418-43b7-bf6c-548e9e66b8d5&diff=7120 2021-07-02T14:02:52Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Gluten-free turkeys? Paper on dangers of wheat-based diet in birds retracted |Is About=The blog presents the case of a retracted paper d...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Gluten-free turkeys? Paper on dangers of wheat-based diet in birds retracted<br /> |Is About=The blog presents the case of a retracted paper due to 'misrepresented' affiliations of the main author as well as other authorship and plagiarism issues.<br /> |Important Because=Every detail of a publication should be right, including who are the legitimate authors and what are their affiliations.<br /> |Important For=Authors<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2018/07/16/gluten-free-turkeys-paper-on-dangers-of-wheat-based-diet-in-birds-retracted/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Plagiarism<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:43e90b80-bfec-4749-b572-64904340d504&diff=7119 2021-07-02T13:59:35Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Duplicate publication uprooted from plant journal |Is About=A paper had been published in a less known journal in the boundaries of a sp...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Duplicate publication uprooted from plant journal<br /> |Is About=A paper had been published in a less known journal in the boundaries of a specific country as well as submitted to an international journal. The paper was later on retracted.<br /> |Important Because=Authors do not always set on purposely to deceive in all ethics violations allegations. For example, double submission may be in order to increase one's list of publications but it can also derive by luck of communication between authors (especially when in different countries/institutions) which may lead to such 'misshapen'.<br /> |Important For=Advisors of students; Supervisors; PhD Students; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/18/duplicate-publication-uprooted-from-plant-journal/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=Pakistan<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Duplicate Submission<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:82e3387e-3e9a-471c-b3eb-08d24844c9df&diff=7118 2021-07-02T13:52:46Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Giving Proper Credit |Is About=This is the factual case of a professor in chemistry who allegedly stole others' work and the reluctance...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Giving Proper Credit<br /> |Is About=This is the factual case of a professor in chemistry who allegedly stole others' work and the reluctance of his academic institution to deal appropriately with the allegations.<br /> |Important For=Academic institutions<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://cen.acs.org/articles/85/i11/Giving-Proper-Credit.html<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=Sweden<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Reference Problem; Academic Responsibility of University<br /> |Related To Research Area=PE 04.06 - Chemical physics<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:5afb1ec9-1717-4b9d-9920-5e788b181fb0&diff=7116 2021-07-02T13:24:04Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Frauds and misconduct in scientific research: a harsh lesson from the pandemic |Is About=This is a factual case. Three papers allegedly...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Frauds and misconduct in scientific research: a harsh lesson from the pandemic<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case. Three papers allegedly used fraudulent research methods as well as conclusions based on data analysed by a small private company owned by one of the co-authors.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2020/10/09/frauds-and-misconducts-in-scientific-research-a-harsh-lesson-from-the-pandemic/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data manipulation; Conflict of interests<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:7ee35e82-8dfc-433b-9844-009495f9721e&diff=7094 2021-06-29T15:52:46Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=It’s Time to Get Serious About Research Fraud |Is About=Dalmeet Singh Chawla from LSE questions the way forward for those committing v...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=It’s Time to Get Serious About Research Fraud<br /> |Is About=Dalmeet Singh Chawla from LSE questions the way forward for those committing violations of research ethics as well as the universities' responsibility for investigating such allegations.  The author uses the case of a Canadian researcher whose medical license was reinstated.<br /> |Important Because=There is an interesting discussion about definitions of research misconduct, responsibilities of different bodies and suggestions for ways forward.<br /> |Important For=Academic institutions; Clinical ethics consultants; Research Ethics Committees; Research integrity trainers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/07/29/its-time-to-get-serious-about-research-fraud/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=Canada<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data Issues; Data fabrication and falsification<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:A704da94-dbca-4926-bd35-773a425a4b7e&diff=7093 2021-06-29T15:19:59Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Itinerant legal scholar who claimed Tufts affiliation up to 10 retractions |Is About=This is a factual case of a professor who had sever...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Itinerant legal scholar who claimed Tufts affiliation up to 10 retractions<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case of a professor who had several of his publications retracted because of claims of plagiarism and faked affiliations.<br /> |Important For=Authors; Editors<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/14/itinerant-legal-scholar-who-claimed-tufts-affiliation-up-to-10-retractions/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=USA; Italy<br /> |Related To Research Area=SH 01.05 - Political economy, institutional economics, law and economics<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:210160e8-3e16-4478-9409-941effcab1ec&diff=7092 2021-06-29T15:16:42Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance<br /> |Is About=A paper was given the chance for correction, following detection of errors in data coding and therefore in results. Such mistakes often mean that papers are retracted. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=An interesting example of a case, signifying that not all retractions are due to conscious manipulation of data/results by the papers' authors.<br /> |Important For=Authors; Journal editors; Peer-reviewers; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/10/divorce-study-felled-by-a-coding-error-gets-a-second-chance/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Related To Research Area=SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:210160e8-3e16-4478-9409-941effcab1ec&diff=7091 2021-06-29T15:15:36Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance<br /> |Is About=A paper was given the chance for correction, following detection of errors in data coding and therefore in results. Such mistakes often mean that papers are retracted. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=An interesting example of a case, signifying that not all retractions are due to conscious data/results manipulation of the papers' authors<br /> |Important For=Authors; Journal editors; Peer-reviewers; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/10/divorce-study-felled-by-a-coding-error-gets-a-second-chance/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Related To Research Area=SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:210160e8-3e16-4478-9409-941effcab1ec&diff=7090 2021-06-29T15:15:12Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance |Is About=A paper was given the chance for correction, following detection o...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance<br /> |Is About=A paper was given the chance for correction, following detection of errors in data coding and therefore in results. Such mistakes often mean that papers are retracted. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=An interesting example of case, signifying that not all retractions are due to conscious data/results manipulation of the papers' authors<br /> |Important For=Authors; Journal editors; Peer-reviewers; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/10/divorce-study-felled-by-a-coding-error-gets-a-second-chance/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Related To Research Area=SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:9ee0ede0-6472-435f-aff1-3644d2fc10ec&diff=7053 2021-06-29T08:38:02Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Columbia grad student faked data in study of socioeconomics and life experiences, says retraction notice |Is About=This is a factual cas...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Columbia grad student faked data in study of socioeconomics and life experiences, says retraction notice<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case of fake data and misleading conclusions in the field of socio-economics.<br /> |Important Because=It is important to present examples of retractions due to misconduct in areas such as economics and social sciences. A recent review&lt;ref&gt;Armond, A.C.V., Gordijn, B., Lewis, J. ''et al.'' A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases. ''BMC Med Ethics'' 22, 50 (2021). &lt;nowiki&gt;https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00620-8&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; has found that ethics violations in social sciences and humanities are not as commonly encountered compared to medical and health sciences.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/07/columbia-grad-student-faked-data-in-study-of-socioeconomics-and-life-experiences-says-retraction-notice/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=USA<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Faked Data<br /> |Related To Research Area=SH 01.03 - Microeconomics, behavioural economics; SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:5ee274e9-9478-4b1e-8edd-519e932c4f91&diff=7046 2021-06-28T12:25:58Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=The rector who resigned after plagiarizing a student’s PhD thesis<br /> |Is About=A rector allegedly copied whole extracts of a PhD student's thesis. When the case was discovered, an investigation led to severe consequences for him, including his resignation.  <br /> |Important Because=Sometimes plagiarism involving copying sections from one's PhD may be more difficult to detect, especially if these sections have been translated to another language.  <br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Authors<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/12/the-rector-who-resigned-after-plagiarizing-a-students-phd-thesis/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=Poland<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism Allegation<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:5ee274e9-9478-4b1e-8edd-519e932c4f91&diff=7045 2021-06-28T11:52:37Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=The rector who resigned after plagiarizing a student’s PhD thesis |Is About=A rector was allegedly copied whole extracts of a PhD stud...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=The rector who resigned after plagiarizing a student’s PhD thesis<br /> |Is About=A rector was allegedly copied whole extracts of a PhD student's thesis. When the case was discovered, an investigation led to severe consequences for him, including his resignation.  <br /> |Important Because=Sometimes plagiarism involving copying sections from one's PhD may be more difficult to detect, especially if these sections have been translated to another language.  <br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Authors<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/12/the-rector-who-resigned-after-plagiarizing-a-students-phd-thesis/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=Poland<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism Allegation<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:C121dc7b-a1a1-4caf-86ae-c1b7855a0734&diff=7044 2021-06-28T11:47:51Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=One in six of the papers you cite in a review has been retracted. What do you do?<br /> |Is About=Retraction Watch brings in questions on how to deal with one's publication when it is heavily relied on research that might contain errors or misconduct issues. A researcher was faced with a difficult dilemma when she realised that a large proportion of the papers on her review on vitamin D links to Parkinson's Disease had been retracted.<br /> |Important Because=Reviews often serve as an important source of evidence in informing policy and practice. This factual case is a very interesting starting point for debate (universities, students, researchers, policy makers) on how to approach reviews and conclusions based on research that has been, for various reasons, retracted.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Authors; Researchers; Journal editors<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/13/one-in-six-of-the-papers-you-cite-in-a-review-has-been-retracted-what-do-you-do/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:1b777e40-9d7f-4ef4-a601-6be70c9e386a<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:C121dc7b-a1a1-4caf-86ae-c1b7855a0734&diff=7043 2021-06-28T11:46:40Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=One in six of the papers you cite in a review has been retracted. What do you do? |Is About=Retraction Watch brings in questions on how...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=One in six of the papers you cite in a review has been retracted. What do you do?<br /> |Is About=Retraction Watch brings in questions on how to deal with one's publication when it is heavily relied on research that might contain errors or misconduct issues. A researcher was faced with a difficult dilemma when she realised that a large proportion of the papers on her review on vitamin D links to Parkinson's Disease had been retracted.<br /> |Important Because=Reviews often serve as an important source of evidence in informing policy and practice. This factual case is a very interesting starting point for debate (universities, students, researchers, policy makers) on how to approach reviews and conclusions based on research that has been, for various reasons, retracted.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Authors; Researchers; Journal editors<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/13/one-in-six-of-the-papers-you-cite-in-a-review-has-been-retracted-what-do-you-do/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:2ca4e4af-2d13-4278-9051-dbc3cea54cac&diff=7042 2021-06-28T11:24:15Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Materials scientist up to nine retractions<br /> |Is About=A researcher in material science has lost several paper to retractions due to figure duplication and data manipulation.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/08/materials-scientist-up-to-nine-retractions/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=Japan<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data manipulation<br /> |Related To Research Area=LS 07.01 - Medical engineering and technology<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:2ca4e4af-2d13-4278-9051-dbc3cea54cac&diff=7041 2021-06-28T11:22:33Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Materials scientist up to nine retractions |Is About=A researcher in material science has lost several paper to retractions due to figur...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Materials scientist up to nine retractions<br /> |Is About=A researcher in material science has lost several paper to retractions due to figure duplication and data manipulation.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/08/materials-scientist-up-to-nine-retractions/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=Japan<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data manipulation<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:B8f2d9e7-f4df-49c8-8f09-d0197944fbd2&diff=7040 2021-06-28T11:17:29Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Guest Post — Unethical Practices in Research and Publishing: Evidence from Russia |Is About=This post provides several factual example...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Guest Post — Unethical Practices in Research and Publishing: Evidence from Russia<br /> |Is About=This post provides several factual examples of 'purchased author credentials' in published papers. Abalkina argues that ‘bought authorship' has flourished partly due to the increased pressure to Russian academics to publish. However, it has expanded to other European and non-countries.<br /> |Important Because=Openly and clearly a dishonest research practice, the case provides a good indication that research integrity practices are still continuously violated even in the 'clear daylight'.<br /> |Important For=Journal editors; Journal publishers; Authors<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/02/04/guest-post-unethical-practices-in-research-and-publishing-evidence-from-russia/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=Russia<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ghost authorship<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:5395827e-af13-47b0-808b-43c0d40f0019&diff=7039 2021-06-28T11:08:26Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues |Is About=A factual case where ethical procedures for...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues<br /> |Is About=A factual case where ethical procedures for informing patients and getting their informed consent had either not been followed properly or had not been declared.<br /> |Important Because=Even in exceptional and unprecedented times like a pandemic it is imperative that all stages of research are followed in a manner dictated by relevant research ethics protocols.<br /> |Important For=Clinical ethics consultants; Clinical researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/15/you-want-to-do-what-paper-on-anal-swabs-for-covid-19-retracted-for-ethical-issues/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=China<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:1a9c0dd9-c68b-478c-9b36-b3fc42762969&diff=7038 2021-06-28T11:07:42Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues |Is About=A factual case where ethical procedures for...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues<br /> |Is About=A factual case where ethical procedures for informing patients and getting their informed consent had either not been followed properly or had not been declared.<br /> |Important Because=Even in exceptional and unprecedented times like a pandemic it is imperative that all stages of research are followed in a manner dictated by relevant research ethics protocols.<br /> |Important For=Clinical ethics consultants; Clinical researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/15/you-want-to-do-what-paper-on-anal-swabs-for-covid-19-retracted-for-ethical-issues/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:C71cc110-e8dd-4ca8-9230-024f7b3ae5cd&diff=7037 2021-06-28T11:07:17Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues |Is About=A factual case where ethical procedures for...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues<br /> |Is About=A factual case where ethical procedures for informing patients and getting their informed consent had either not been followed properly or had not been declared.<br /> |Important Because=Even in exceptional and unprecedented times like a pandemic it is imperative that all stages of research are followed in a manner dictated by relevant research ethics protocols.<br /> |Important For=Clinical ethics consultants; Clinical researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/15/you-want-to-do-what-paper-on-anal-swabs-for-covid-19-retracted-for-ethical-issues/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:D028a0a6-712d-4189-8add-932e3af6edd1&diff=7036 2021-06-28T10:51:31Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=A Letter of Resignation<br /> |Is About=A case study appearing in a blog site that posts on sexual misconduct in higher education. Sexual demands, bullying, coercion, harassment and a long list of similar behaviours are less frequently reported as misconduct in research ethics; but do these behaviours comply with the ECCRI&lt;ref&gt;ECCRI: [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity_horizon_en.pdf&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;'s principle of respect for colleagues? or, with the good research practices of safeguards and collaborative working?<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=This case is one of several examples - presented in this blog site - on how sexual misconduct can violate the ECCRI's principles and good practices in work spaces of academia.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Women in academia<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://1752group.com/a-letter-of-resignation/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Sexual harassment<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:D028a0a6-712d-4189-8add-932e3af6edd1&diff=7035 2021-06-28T10:47:44Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=A Letter of Resignation<br /> |Is About=A case study appearing in a blog site that posts on sexual misconduct in higher education. Sexual demands, bullying, coercion, harassment and a long list of similar behaviours are less frequently reported as misconduct in research ethics; but do these behaviours comply with the ECCRI's&lt;ref&gt;ECCRI: [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity_horizon_en.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;ECCRI: [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]&lt;/ref&gt;principle of respect for colleagues? or, with the good research practices of safeguards and collaborative working?<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=This case is one of several examples - presented in this blog site - on how sexual misconduct can violate the ECCRI's principles and good practices in work spaces of academia.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Women in academia<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://1752group.com/a-letter-of-resignation/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Sexual harassment<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:D028a0a6-712d-4189-8add-932e3af6edd1&diff=7034 2021-06-28T10:44:59Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A Letter of Resignation |Is About=A case study appearing in a blog site that posts on sexual misconduct in higher education. Sexual dema...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=A Letter of Resignation<br /> |Is About=A case study appearing in a blog site that posts on sexual misconduct in higher education. Sexual demands, bullying, coercion, harassment and a long list of similar behaviours are less frequently reported as misconduct in research ethics; but do these behaviours comply with the ECCRI's&lt;ref&gt;ECCRI: [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;ECCRI: [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]&lt;/ref&gt;principle of respect for colleagues? or, with the good research practices of safeguards and collaborative working?<br /> |Important Because=This case is one of several examples - presented in this blog site - on how sexual misconduct can violate the ECCRI's principles and good practices in work spaces of academia.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Women in academia<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://1752group.com/a-letter-of-resignation/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Sexual harassment<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:36c3c63d-3041-43d1-8543-0315d17e4939&diff=7033 2021-06-28T10:37:38Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=What should a journal do when a scientist who committed misconduct submits a new paper?<br /> |Is About=Linked to the case of Olivier Voinnet, the blog presents an example of publishers' response to authors whose past papers have been retracted or have had corrections issued on them.<br /> |Important Because=Whether it is purposeful attempt to deceit and knowingly one manipulates data, images, results, or, corrections in publications are the outcome of honest mistakes, this blog raises the editors' dilemma in accepting new submission by these authors. An interesting example for discussion mainly for those involved in publishing.<br /> |Important For=Journal publishers; Journal editors; Academic staff; Publishers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/24/journal-scientist-committed-misconduct-submits-new-paper/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:4603212b-89c1-41d9-a4f5-c8fa706cc0b1<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:4603212b-89c1-41d9-a4f5-c8fa706cc0b1&diff=7032 2021-06-28T10:36:24Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Investigation ends in 6th retraction for Voinnet<br /> |Is About=A distinguished plant researcher has had several of his publications retracted and many more corrected following investigation for a number of alleged misconduct issues (e.g. using figures from student without prior consent, duplication, errors, data manipulation).<br /> |Important For=Academic institutions; Industry; researchers; Ethics committee members<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2015/10/05/investigation-ends-in-6th-retraction-for-voinnet/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:36c3c63d-3041-43d1-8543-0315d17e4939<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=05/10/2015<br /> |Has Location=Switzerland; France<br /> |Related To Research Area=LS 03.10 - Development, developmental genetics, pattern formation and embryology in plants<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:5b7dca43-25e9-4c3f-83c3-65a7c41abe24&diff=7031 2021-06-28T10:35:06Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Dutch psychology fraudster avoids trial |Is About=The newsblog presents the case of a social psychology researcher who was investigated...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Dutch psychology fraudster avoids trial<br /> |Is About=The newsblog presents the case of a social psychology researcher who was investigated for allegations of data fabrication. The researcher has had more than 3 dozens of publications retracted, received reduced salaries, was ordered to do community work and had to return his PhD.<br /> |Important Because=This factual case shows the magnitude of the penalties that can be issued on some confirmed cases of research ethics violations .<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Senior researchers; Clinical researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/06/dutch-psychology-fraudster-avoids-trial.html<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=Diederik Stapel<br /> |Has Location=Germany<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data fabrication and falsification<br /> |Related To Research Area=SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:4603212b-89c1-41d9-a4f5-c8fa706cc0b1&diff=7029 2021-06-28T10:03:44Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Investigation ends in 6th retraction for Voinnet<br /> |Is About=A distinguished plant researcher has had several of his publications retracted and many more corrected following investigation for a number of alleged misconduct issues (e.g. using figures from student without prior consent, duplication, errors, data manipulation).<br /> |Important For=Academic institutions; Industry; researchers; Ethics committee members<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2015/10/05/investigation-ends-in-6th-retraction-for-voinnet/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:36c3c63d-3041-43d1-8543-0315d17e4939<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=05/10/2015<br /> |Has Location=Switzerland; France<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:36c3c63d-3041-43d1-8543-0315d17e4939&diff=7028 2021-06-28T09:36:14Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=What should a journal do when a scientist who committed misconduct submits a new paper? |Is About=Linked to the case of Olivier Voinnet,...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=What should a journal do when a scientist who committed misconduct submits a new paper?<br /> |Is About=Linked to the case of Olivier Voinnet, the blog presents an example of publishers' response to authors whose past papers have been retracted or have had corrections issued on them.<br /> |Important Because=Whether it is purposeful attempt to deceit and knowingly one manipulates data, images, results, or, corrections in publications are the outcome of honest mistakes, this blog raises the editors' dilemma in accepting new submission by these authors. An interesting example for discussion mainly for those involved in publishing.<br /> |Important For=Journal publishers; Journal editors; Academic staff; Publishers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/24/journal-scientist-committed-misconduct-submits-new-paper/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:4603212b-89c1-41d9-a4f5-c8fa706cc0b1<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=France; Switzerland<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:4603212b-89c1-41d9-a4f5-c8fa706cc0b1&diff=7027 2021-06-28T09:25:32Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Investigation ends in 6th retraction for Voinnet |Is About=A distinguished plant researcher has had several of his publications retracte...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Investigation ends in 6th retraction for Voinnet<br /> |Is About=A distinguished plant researcher has had several of his publications retracted and many more corrected following investigation for a number of alleged misconduct issues (e.g. using figures from student without prior consent, duplication, errors, data manipulation).<br /> |Important For=Academic institutions; Industry; researchers; Ethics committee members<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2015/10/05/investigation-ends-in-6th-retraction-for-voinnet/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=05/10/2015<br /> |Has Location=Switzerland; France<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:0b317efc-9b3c-4330-9227-ec259c7b355b&diff=6996 2021-06-23T10:28:53Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Criminologist to have four papers retracted following months of scrutiny |Is About=This blog presents the case of a criminology professo...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Criminologist to have four papers retracted following months of scrutiny<br /> |Is About=This blog presents the case of a criminology professor whose several publications were retracted or corrected. The retractions were initially requested by one of his co-authors.<br /> |Important Because=A recent review&lt;ref&gt;Armond, A.C.V., Gordijn, B., Lewis, J. ''et al.'' A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases. ''BMC Med Ethics'' '''22,''' 50 (2021). &lt;nowiki&gt;https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00620-8&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; has found that published cases of research ethics violations in Social Sciences and Humanities disciplines constitute a very small percentage (4.3% and 1.3% respectively). It is important to flag examples of ethics misconduct in disciplines like Law.<br /> |Important For=Ethics committee members; Academic staff; research students; researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2019/11/19/criminologist-to-have-four-papers-retracted-following-months-of-scrutiny/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=USA<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=data mistakes<br /> |Related To Research Area=SH 02.08 - Legal studies, constitutions, comparative law, human rights<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:539ff2d3-3237-4d26-b77f-33185a232c12&diff=6994 2021-06-22T15:19:30Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Official notice published for chem paper slated for retraction in 2011<br /> |Is About=Retraction Watch brings in the case of a chemist researcher who has had several papers retracted due to a number of research ethics misconduct issues, mainly falsification and fabrication of results.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Research Ethics Committees; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/11/official-notice-published-for-chem-paper-slated-for-retraction-in-2011/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=Claudio Airoldi<br /> |Has Timepoint=11/11/2016<br /> |Has Location=Brazil<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data fabrication and falsification<br /> |Related To Research Area=PE 04.18 - Environment chemistry<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:539ff2d3-3237-4d26-b77f-33185a232c12&diff=6993 2021-06-22T15:18:54Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Official notice published for chem paper slated for retraction in 2011 |Is About=Retraction Watch brings in the case of a chemist resear...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Official notice published for chem paper slated for retraction in 2011<br /> |Is About=Retraction Watch brings in the case of a chemist researcher who has had several papers retracted due to a number of research ethics misconduct issues, mainly falsification and fabrication of results.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Research Ethics Committees; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/11/official-notice-published-for-chem-paper-slated-for-retraction-in-2011/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=Claudio Airoldi<br /> |Has Timepoint=11/11/2016<br /> |Has Location=Brazil<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data fabrication and falsification<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:402ee986-3e2b-4cb5-b76b-d528fd8b9352&diff=6992 2021-06-22T15:08:32Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=In the matter of J Hendrik Schön<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case of misconduct by physics researcher Hendrik Schön.<br /> |Important Because=David Goodstein, professor of physics, presents this case with an interesting discussion of several points, including some common 'danger factors' usually present in cases of research misconduct and lessons to be learnt.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://physicsworld.com/a/in-the-matter-of-j-hendrik-schn/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=01/11/2002<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data fabrication and falsification; misconduct by company<br /> |Related To Research Area=PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:402ee986-3e2b-4cb5-b76b-d528fd8b9352&diff=6991 2021-06-22T14:20:48Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=In the matter of J Hendrik Schön |Is About=This is a factual case of misconduct by physics researcher Hendrik Schön. |Important Becaus...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=In the matter of J Hendrik Schön<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case of misconduct by physics researcher Hendrik Schön.<br /> |Important Because=David Goodstein, professor of physics, presents this case with an interesting discussion of several points, including some common 'danger factors' usually present in cases of research misconduct and lessons to be learnt.<br /> |Important For=Academic staff; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://physicsworld.com/a/in-the-matter-of-j-hendrik-schn/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=01/11/2002<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data fabrication and falsification; misconduct by company<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:811bb248-1423-479e-9880-ec151a3a4fbf&diff=6990 2021-06-22T14:09:59Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=FDA Inspections Revealing Research Misconduct Hidden from Public View |Is About=This blog presents a few example cases of fraud, falsifi...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=FDA Inspections Revealing Research Misconduct Hidden from Public View<br /> |Is About=This blog presents a few example cases of fraud, falsified data and other types of research misconduct identified by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).<br /> |Important For=Everyone<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/04/fda-inspections-revealing-research-misconduct-hidden-from-public-view/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=27/04/2020<br /> |Has Location=USA<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fraud; Data fabrication and falsification<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:2e32c067-6f2b-4c0c-9987-0ccb66bcb5a5&diff=6985 2021-06-21T16:35:46Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Everything We Know About Facebook's Secret Mood Manipulation Experiment It was probably legal. But was it ethical? It was probably legal...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Everything We Know About Facebook's Secret Mood Manipulation Experiment It was probably legal. But was it ethical? It was probably legal. But was it ethical?<br /> |Is About=This case is about a Facebook study that manipulated users' data in order to examine emotions and their change. The study lasted for a week. Facebook claims that the use of data was in order to improve their services. The author of this case study poses the question of whether, although legal under the company's terms and conditions, such use of data is ethical.<br /> |Important Because=This is a thought provoking case that provides some philosophical questions on what is legal and ethical. Issues around informed consent, the role of the IRB and the funding of the study are also discussed.<br /> |Important For=Ethics committee members<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:Bdf55d2c-4b2b-4def-88af-59e117285a25&diff=6984 2021-06-21T15:55:09Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A bullshit excuse? My lab notebook “was blown into a manure pit” |Is About=Retraction Watch presents the case of a researcher who fa...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=A bullshit excuse? My lab notebook “was blown into a manure pit”<br /> |Is About=Retraction Watch presents the case of a researcher who failed to declare conflicts of interest in his research; he has also allegedly fabricated and falsified data on his research to reach certain conclusions.<br /> |Important For=Research institutions; industry stakeholders<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/01/05/a-new-excuse-for-data-fabrication-my-notebook-blew-into-a-manure-pit/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=Craig Frear<br /> |Has Timepoint=5/1/2016<br /> |Has Location=USA<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of Interest; Data fabrication and falsification<br /> |Related To Research Area=LS 09.03 - Agriculture related to animal husbandry, dairying, livestock raising<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:226610bc-a641-48a0-b2a6-9f2201bf4b83&diff=6983 2021-06-21T14:02:41Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Agriculture researcher up to 15 retractions for fake peer review |Is About=This is the factual case of an agriculture research scientist...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Agriculture researcher up to 15 retractions for fake peer review<br /> |Is About=This is the factual case of an agriculture research scientist whose several papers were retracted following accusation of fake reviews.<br /> |Important Because=Whilst some publishers allow or encourage suggestions for reviewers, one needs to be careful at how they go about this often controversial practice.  Journals in general have a transparent policy and set of guidelines on peer-reviewing. Some publishing bodies offer comprehensive sections on peer-[https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/being-a-peer-reviewer reviewing]<br /> |Important For=Reserchers; Journal editors; Journal publishers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/04/09/agriculture-researcher-up-to-15-retractions-for-fake-peer-review/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=Christos Damalas<br /> |Has Timepoint=9/4/2020<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer Review<br /> |Related To Research Area=LS 09.05 - Agriculture related to crop production, soil biology and cultivation, applied plant biology<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:31a4701c-46bd-47c2-b7f8-3f1d2308e8be&diff=6982 2021-06-21T13:47:03Z

<p>0000-0002-1723-7560: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Human Research Violations By  UCSD  Eye Doctor Showcase A National Problem<br /> |Is About=This case study presents a number of research ethics violations by a distinguished eye doctor who has helped in developing break-through medical treatments.<br /> |Important Because=The authors of this blog provide an analysis that raises several interesting points. These concern not only the ethics violations by the researcher but also the response from a number of bodies, not least the doctor's institution, the ORI (Office of Research Integrity) and the Office for Human Research Protection.   <br /> |Important For=Academic institutions; ORI; Research Integrity Officers; Human rights defenders; Research Ethics Committees<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/apr/18/human-research-violations-ucsd-eye-doctor-showcase/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=Dr. Kang Zhang<br /> |Has Location=USA<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Research with Humans<br /> }}</div>

0000-0002-1723-7560