Difference between revisions of "Resource:Dd7bd3da-ee07-4642-8b4e-23e18d16fa4b"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title=The | + | |Title=The Case of Vipul Bhrigu and the Federal Definition of Research Misconduct |
| − | |Is About=The Office of Research Integrity found in 2011 that | + | |Is About=The Office of Research Integrity found in 2011 that a postdoctoral researcher who sabotaged a colleague’s research materials, was guilty of misconduct<ref>Rasmussen, Lisa M. "The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct." ''Science and engineering ethics'' 20.2 (2014): 411-421.</ref>. This case describes when something is considered as scientific misconduct and whether this really was the case. This is a factual case. |
| − | + | <references /> | |
| − | + | |Important Because=When accuding someone for committing scientific fraud, it is important that the definition is clear en interpretative by everybody. | |
| − | This is a factual case. | ||
| − | |Important Because=When accuding someone for committing scientific fraud, it is important that the definition is clear en interpretative by everybody. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 15: | Line 10: | ||
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-013-9459-y | |Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-013-9459-y | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Involves=Vipul Bhrigu | |Involves=Vipul Bhrigu | ||
Revision as of 21:40, 26 May 2020
ResourcesCases
The Case of Vipul Bhrigu and the Federal Definition of Research Misconduct
What is this about?
The Office of Research Integrity found in 2011 that a postdoctoral researcher who sabotaged a colleague’s research materials, was guilty of misconduct[1]. This case describes when something is considered as scientific misconduct and whether this really was the case. This is a factual case.
Why is this important?
When accuding someone for committing scientific fraud, it is important that the definition is clear en interpretative by everybody.
For whom is this important?
Other information
Who
When
Where
Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
References
- ↑ Rasmussen, Lisa M. "The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct." Science and engineering ethics 20.2 (2014): 411-421.
