Difference between revisions of "Resource:88fb9129-4338-4bd3-a332-2e5eee03c598"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title=What | + | |Title=What Universities can Learn from one of Science’s Biggest Frauds |
| − | |Is About=. | + | |Is About=This factual case discusses an analysis of research misconduct investigations into a particular and significant case of scientific misconduct. The investigators reviewed several misconduct reports regarding this instance and found that all reports were inadequate. |
| − | |Important Because=. | + | <references /> |
| − | |Important For=Researchers | + | |Important Because=Well-performed investigations are essential to prevent research misconduct and its negative consequences. As noted in the article, current misconduct investigations mostly focus on the question of whether any scientific misconduct has occurred, rather than the correctness of the literature that has followed from it. However, the negative consequences for patients and general practitioners are mostly caused by the publications that follow from the research. This literature can be incorrect, even if no real misconduct has been established, leading to potential harm for patients. Therefore, the researchers in the present case argue that research misconduct investigations should aim to preserve the integrity of the literature, rather than to establish whether misconduct has taken place or not. |
| + | |Important For=Researchers; Academic staff; Universities; research integrity researchers; Research Ethics Committees | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01884-2 | |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01884-2 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |||
|Has Timepoint=2016 | |Has Timepoint=2016 | ||
| − | |Has Location=Japan | + | |Has Location=Japan; United States |
| − | |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability | + | |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Accountability; Honesty |
| − | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism | + | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Retraction; Fabrication |
|Related To Research Area=Health sciences | |Related To Research Area=Health sciences | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:41, 19 August 2021
ResourcesCases
What Universities can Learn from one of Science’s Biggest Frauds
What is this about?
This factual case discusses an analysis of research misconduct investigations into a particular and significant case of scientific misconduct. The investigators reviewed several misconduct reports regarding this instance and found that all reports were inadequate.
Why is this important?
Well-performed investigations are essential to prevent research misconduct and its negative consequences. As noted in the article, current misconduct investigations mostly focus on the question of whether any scientific misconduct has occurred, rather than the correctness of the literature that has followed from it. However, the negative consequences for patients and general practitioners are mostly caused by the publications that follow from the research. This literature can be incorrect, even if no real misconduct has been established, leading to potential harm for patients. Therefore, the researchers in the present case argue that research misconduct investigations should aim to preserve the integrity of the literature, rather than to establish whether misconduct has taken place or not.
