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 20:40, 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.
- ↑ Rasmussen, Lisa M. "The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct." Science and engineering ethics 20.2 (2014): 411-421.
Why is this important?
When accuding someone for committing scientific fraud, it is important that the definition is clear en interpretative by everybody.
