Difference between revisions of "Resource:8367e13a-b836-4237-bfdd-e2d9dd491329"

From The Embassy of Good Science
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Title=Bothered and Bewildered But not Bewitched
 
|Title=Bothered and Bewildered But not Bewitched
|Is About=This case is about article amendments which unfortunately became a daily practice. This is a factual case.
+
|Is About=This is a factual case that describes the reasons for the (potential) retraction of various articles. Most of these articles are retracted due to authorship issues, while others are potentially retracted due to data falsification. One of the articles is retracted because one of the co-authors was not aware of its publication, nor did he permit for the publication.
|Important Because=When an article is being published, one assumes that the co-authors are aware of its publication. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
+
|Important Because=All authors listed on a manuscript or article should have permitted publication of the article. Otherwise, the paper will be retracted soon after publication and a lot of funding and hard work is wasted, as this case proves. The journal discussed here has measures in place to make sure that all authors have agreed to the publication, such as an agreement form that needs to be signed by all co-authors. However, the present case shows that this is not always effective and stresses the importance to remain vigilant even with these measures in place. In addition, the present case shows that it is in nobody’s interest to counterfeit the permission of one of the authors. 
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
}}
 
}}
Line 13: Line 13:
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Tags
 
{{Tags
|Involves=Andrew Leask
 
 
|Has Timepoint=2008
 
|Has Timepoint=2008
 
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
 
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability

Latest revision as of 13:50, 5 August 2021

Cases

Bothered and Bewildered But not Bewitched

What is this about?

This is a factual case that describes the reasons for the (potential) retraction of various articles. Most of these articles are retracted due to authorship issues, while others are potentially retracted due to data falsification. One of the articles is retracted because one of the co-authors was not aware of its publication, nor did he permit for the publication.

Why is this important?

All authors listed on a manuscript or article should have permitted publication of the article. Otherwise, the paper will be retracted soon after publication and a lot of funding and hard work is wasted, as this case proves. The journal discussed here has measures in place to make sure that all authors have agreed to the publication, such as an agreement form that needs to be signed by all co-authors. However, the present case shows that this is not always effective and stresses the importance to remain vigilant even with these measures in place. In addition, the present case shows that it is in nobody’s interest to counterfeit the permission of one of the authors. 

For whom is this important?

Other information

When
Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6