View source for Resource:45af2d0e-4238-4d3b-8431-9b7682eb9691

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science
|Is About=The authors analyze a convenience sample of fraud cases to see whether (social) psychology is more susceptible to fraud than other disciplines. They also evaluate whether the peer review process and replications work well in practice to detect fraud. This is a factual case.
|Important Because=There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691612460687
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:Af266b39-20a3-4b97-a876-08eebb428fe6;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Wolfgang Stroebe; Tom Postmes; Russell Spears
|Has Timepoint=2012
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Fraud; Misconduct; Peer Review
|Related To Research Area=Psychology
}}