Difference between revisions of "Resource:210160e8-3e16-4478-9409-941effcab1ec"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance |Is About=A paper was given the chance for correction, following detection o...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Title=Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance | |Title=Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance | ||
|Is About=A paper was given the chance for correction, following detection of errors in data coding and therefore in results. Such mistakes often mean that papers are retracted. This is a factual case. | |Is About=A paper was given the chance for correction, following detection of errors in data coding and therefore in results. Such mistakes often mean that papers are retracted. This is a factual case. | ||
| − | |Important Because=An interesting example of case, signifying that not all retractions are due to conscious data/results | + | |Important Because=An interesting example of a case, signifying that not all retractions are due to conscious manipulation of data/results by the papers' authors. |
|Important For=Authors; Journal editors; Peer-reviewers; Researchers | |Important For=Authors; Journal editors; Peer-reviewers; Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:16, 29 June 2021
ResourcesCases
Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance
What is this about?
A paper was given the chance for correction, following detection of errors in data coding and therefore in results. Such mistakes often mean that papers are retracted. This is a factual case.
Why is this important?
An interesting example of a case, signifying that not all retractions are due to conscious manipulation of data/results by the papers' authors.
