Difference between revisions of "Resource:8367e13a-b836-4237-bfdd-e2d9dd491329"

From The Embassy of Good Science
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Resource
 
{{Resource
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Bothered and bewildered, but not bewitched
+
|Title=Bothered and Bewildered But not Bewitched
|Is About=This case is about article amendments which unfortunately became a daily practice.
+
|Is About=This case is about article amendments which unfortunately became a daily practice. This is a factual case.
 
|Important Because=When an article is being published, one assumes that the co-authors are aware of its publication. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
 
|Important Because=When an article is being published, one assumes that the co-authors are aware of its publication. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
 
 
Journal
 
 
Factual
 
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
}}
 
}}
Line 14: Line 9:
 
|Has Link=https://www.jci.org/articles/view/37695
 
|Has Link=https://www.jci.org/articles/view/37695
 
}}
 
}}
{{Related To}}
+
{{Related To
 +
|Related To Theme=Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673
 +
}}
 
{{Tags
 
{{Tags
 
|Involves=Andrew Leask
 
|Involves=Andrew Leask

Revision as of 09:16, 26 May 2020

Cases

Bothered and Bewildered But not Bewitched

What is this about?

This case is about article amendments which unfortunately became a daily practice. This is a factual case.

Why is this important?

When an article is being published, one assumes that the co-authors are aware of its publication. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

For whom is this important?

Other information

When
Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6