Difference between revisions of "Resource:9736d9b3-fbe1-45cf-a5d0-20e19038d394"
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title=Guest | + | |Title=Guest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies |
| − | |Is About=The | + | |Is About=This factual case discusses various accusations of scientific misconduct, most notably the practices of guest authorship and ghostwriting. The case begins with various letters to the authors of an article on guest authorship and the editors of the journal, following which both the editors and the authors respond to these letters. |
| − | |Important Because= | + | <references /> |
| − | + | |Important Because=Ghostwriting and guest authorship give an unfair advantage to guest authors over researchers who do not take part in such practices by awarding guest authors with publications despite not having contributed to the work done. In addition, the practice of guest authorship may seriously damage public trust in science and may also cast considerable doubt on the independence of researchers involved in drug trials. However, incorrect accusations of guest authorship, and scientific misconduct in general, harm the reputation of innocent researchers. Therefore, it is important to openly discuss accusations of guest authorship made in publications, as is done in the present case. <br /> | |
| − | + | <references /> | |
| − | + | |Important For=Researchers; Journal editors; Journal publishers; Pharma Industry | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
|Has Link=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/182444 | |Has Link=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/182444 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:540f8241-c354-4249-8b63-6bdc2e74bdf8;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | | | + | |Has Timepoint=2008 |
|Has Location=USA; United States | |Has Location=USA; United States | ||
| − | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability | + | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Transparency |
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghost authorship; Questionable research practice | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghost authorship; Questionable research practice | ||
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:26, 19 August 2021
ResourcesGuest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies
What is this about?
This factual case discusses various accusations of scientific misconduct, most notably the practices of guest authorship and ghostwriting. The case begins with various letters to the authors of an article on guest authorship and the editors of the journal, following which both the editors and the authors respond to these letters.
Why is this important?
Ghostwriting and guest authorship give an unfair advantage to guest authors over researchers who do not take part in such practices by awarding guest authors with publications despite not having contributed to the work done. In addition, the practice of guest authorship may seriously damage public trust in science and may also cast considerable doubt on the independence of researchers involved in drug trials. However, incorrect accusations of guest authorship, and scientific misconduct in general, harm the reputation of innocent researchers. Therefore, it is important to openly discuss accusations of guest authorship made in publications, as is done in the present case.
