Difference between revisions of "Resource:C3616714-ba4b-43d0-b9c3-fc637e067dea"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title=How I | + | |Title=How I Was Nearly Duped into 'Authoring' a Fake Paper |
| − | |Is About= | + | |Is About=This a real case about an orthopaedic expert (Prof. Aspenberg) who was invited to join a workgroup in a luxury hotel in Switzerland, so that he would advocate for a new commercial method of bone enhancement called prophylactic surgery. He was also asked to become a co-author of a paper that promotes this method and an associated product. He realises that this is set up by a commercial company and that both the working group and the follow-up paper are aimed at promoting the company's product, and he declines the request to advocate for the method, or become a co-author. |
| − | |Important Because= | + | |Important Because=This case clearly demonstrates how researchers could be drawn into questionable practices involving commercial parties, and provides best practices for dealing with these situations. Professor Aspenberg is not embarrased to admit that he was nearly commiting a questionable practice and speaks out so that others would not repeat his mistake. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| − | |Important For= | + | |Important For=All stakeholders in research; PhD students; Senior researchers |
| + | |Has Best Practice=Based on the provided information in the case, this can be seen as examplary conduct that shows how a virtuous researcher deals with problematic situations. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
|Has Link=https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/351/bmj.h6605.full.pdf | |Has Link=https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/351/bmj.h6605.full.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Has Timepoint=2015 | |Has Timepoint=2015 | ||
|Has Location=Sweden | |Has Location=Sweden | ||
| − | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty | + | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Transparency |
| − | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Conflict of interest | + | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Conflict of interest; Duty to Disclose Commercial Interest |
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:10, 14 October 2020
ResourcesCases
How I Was Nearly Duped into 'Authoring' a Fake Paper
What is this about?
This a real case about an orthopaedic expert (Prof. Aspenberg) who was invited to join a workgroup in a luxury hotel in Switzerland, so that he would advocate for a new commercial method of bone enhancement called prophylactic surgery. He was also asked to become a co-author of a paper that promotes this method and an associated product. He realises that this is set up by a commercial company and that both the working group and the follow-up paper are aimed at promoting the company's product, and he declines the request to advocate for the method, or become a co-author.
Why is this important?
This case clearly demonstrates how researchers could be drawn into questionable practices involving commercial parties, and provides best practices for dealing with these situations. Professor Aspenberg is not embarrased to admit that he was nearly commiting a questionable practice and speaks out so that others would not repeat his mistake.
For whom is this important?
What are the best practices?
Based on the provided information in the case, this can be seen as examplary conduct that shows how a virtuous researcher deals with problematic situations.
