Difference between revisions of "Resource:716dca50-ee7d-4fc5-86f2-491d88d3cf4d"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=Traver paper: The Unique Case of a Published Delusion |
| − | |Is About= | + | |Is About=This is a historical case about an entomologist called Jay Traver who published her personal experiences with a mite infestation of her scalp in the ''Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington'' in 1951. Although results are not reproducible and seem to have been fabricated (hence, deserving of a retraction), in this article it is argued that since she suffered from Delusory Parasitosis, the accusations of fabrication may not hold, and bad science would be a better description of the problem at hand. Accordingly, the validity of a retraction note due to fabrication is questioned on the grounds of discrimination against mentally ill. |
| − | + | <references /> | |
| − | + | |Important Because=It raises questions about the definition of fabrication and its difference with bad science, and whether journal editors should/could take into account the mental state of authors who submit articles. | |
| − | + | <references /> | |
| − | |Important Because= | + | |Important For=Researchers; Journal editors; Policy makers |
| − | + | |Has Best Practice=Editors need to publish a retraction notice and specifically clarify the unreliability of results, without making a reference to the mental state of the author. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-011-9339-2 | |Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-011-9339-2 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |||
|Has Timepoint=1951 | |Has Timepoint=1951 | ||
| − | |Has Location= | + | |Has Location=United States |
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability | |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability | ||
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication (unconsciously) | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication (unconsciously) | ||
|Related To Research Area=Biological sciences | |Related To Research Area=Biological sciences | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:23, 25 October 2020
ResourcesCases
Traver paper: The Unique Case of a Published Delusion
What is this about?
This is a historical case about an entomologist called Jay Traver who published her personal experiences with a mite infestation of her scalp in the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington in 1951. Although results are not reproducible and seem to have been fabricated (hence, deserving of a retraction), in this article it is argued that since she suffered from Delusory Parasitosis, the accusations of fabrication may not hold, and bad science would be a better description of the problem at hand. Accordingly, the validity of a retraction note due to fabrication is questioned on the grounds of discrimination against mentally ill.
Why is this important?
It raises questions about the definition of fabrication and its difference with bad science, and whether journal editors should/could take into account the mental state of authors who submit articles.
For whom is this important?
What are the best practices?
Editors need to publish a retraction notice and specifically clarify the unreliability of results, without making a reference to the mental state of the author.
