Difference between revisions of "Resource:F243f440-69e9-44f8-b95a-5e0c2009f700"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |||
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability | |Has Virtue And Value=Accountability | ||
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=REC approval | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=REC approval | ||
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 17:48, 25 October 2020
ResourcesCases
Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct - perspective of a research ethics board chair
What is this about?
Much had been written recently in the anesthesia literature about scientific misconduct, precipitated in large part by revelations and ongoing allegations of misconduct and that required retraction of more than 60 articles from the medical literature[1]. In this article the writer wrote an opinion from the perspective of the chair of a research ethics board. This is a factual case.
- ↑ Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 26.2 (2012): 181-185.
Why is this important?
An article that contains false information, once published and even if retracted, often continues to be cited and included in reviews, lectures, and meta-analyses. These, in turn, could affect medical practice and public policy for considerable periods[1]
- ↑ Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 26.2 (2012): 181-185.
